Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ENERGY

Conservation

Mr. Gow: asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will make a further statement about Government policy to conserve energy.

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Eric Varley): An energy conservation campaign is of necessity a long, hard slog but there are already encouraging signs of worthwhile achievement.

Mr. Gow: Will the Secretary of State say what progress he has been able to make to ensure that the cost of energy represents the true cost of producing that energy? Will he also say what discussions he has had with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to ensure that any increased

costs do not bear unfairly on the weakest section of the community?

Mr. Varley: The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that in the last 11 months my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I have made it plain that energy pricing must be undertaken on a much more realistic basis. I am sure he will also have noticed that there has been a record increase in social security benefits. There is to be an uprating in April this year and a further uprating later in the year.

Mr. Hardy: Is it not a fact that Conservative Members persist in demanding that my right hon. Friend should take stern action to conserve energy and then criticise every step he takes?

Mr. Varley: That is true of some hon. Gentlemen, but there can be a massive reduction in energy use only by strict allocation, rationing and electricity rota cuts. I think that this is well understood.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what progress is being made towards a European conservation programme? What contribution are the Government making to it, and what view do they take about Dr. Kissinger's proposals for a floor price for oil?

Mr. Varley: On the last point, we are examining the proposals which have been made about downside risk and are considering them seriously. As for the EEC,


I remind the hon. Gentleman that our measures are probably in advance of anything that is being done in the Community.

Petrol (Prices)

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received concerning proposals for a two-tier system of petroleum pricing; and what replies he has sent.

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. John Smith): My right hon. Friend has received representations from a number of quarters, including hon. Members, motoring and other organisations. He has explained that two-tier pricing is only one of a number of energy saving ideas currently being looked at.

Mr. Mitchell: Do I take it from that reply that no decision has yet been taken about a two-tier pricing system? Is anybody examining the administrative costs of operating such a system?

Mr. Smith: There has been a great deal of speculation in the Press and elsewhere about this matter, but no decisions has been taken by the Government. The costs of fuel rationing would be very considerable, but the cost of a two-tier system would be less. We calculate that it would be about £5 million. However, I emphasise that no decision has been taken.

Mr. Cormack: Will the Minister accept that many of us feel that the two-tier system is the most fatuous suggestion that has ever been made, and that it would be far more sensible if help could be given to those in rural areas by allowing them to offset a certain portion of the expenditure against tax, but that subsidies should not be accepted?

Mr. Smith: In the initial stages most of the representations about a two-tier pricing system came from Conservative Members who represent rural constituencies. Obviously, they changed their tune when they realised what the likely allocation would be.

Mr. Cormack: Not 1.

Mr. Smith: Perhaps not the hon. Gentleman, but some of his hon. Friends took that view. There is a real problem in rural communities, which the Govern-

ment accept, but it is difficult to pick out people in the rural areas as distinct from those in other parts of the community. It is difficult to see what can be done to assist them. The question of taxation is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Is my hon. Friend aware that the problem in rural areas exists because of the inadequacy of public transport there, that many of my constituents have to use their cars to travel to work, and that great embarrassment and difficulty is caused to them because of the high and increasing cost of petrol? Will he take that factor into account when the scheme is being worked out?

Mr. Smith: We have the problems of rural areas very much in mind. My right hon. Friend will appreciate that if a certain type of two-tier pricing system were introduced people in rural areas might be worse off rather than better off, in terms of the allocation of petrol. We are aware of the difficulties which face people because of insufficient public transport. That is why my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment is currently carrying out a review of public transport services.

Mr. Lane: asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will make a further statement on petrol pricing policy, in the light of the latest indications of crude oil prices for the rest of 1975.

Mr. John Smith: There are no indications of a major change in crude oil prices this year and I do not think, therefore, that a further statement is called for.

Mr. Lane: Is it not a fact that users of petrol, including many who have to travel to work in my constituency from outlying country districts, are bearing a disproportionate share of the total level of oil taxation? Will the hon. Gentleman urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he is considering the relative oil product tax levels before the next Budget, to introduce some alleviation within the total for petrol?

Mr. Smith: Many people suffer from the increases which have had to be imposed in the price of petrol. The hon. Gentleman referred to people in rural


areas. We understand their problems, but it would be a mistake to think that the difficulty is confined to them. Many shift workers in urban areas have to pay substantial extra costs to get to work. It would be difficult to work out a scheme to help people without creating even greater problems. No doubt the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have noted the suggestions made by the hon. Gentleman.

National Nuclear Corporation

Mr. Tom King: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if the integration of the nuclear design and construction industries into the National Nuclear Corporation has now been completed.

Mr. Varley: Not yet, but I expect this to be accomplished in the very near future.

Mr. King: It is a matter of great concern, when fuel costs are rising so sharply, that the nuclear programme is being delayed in this way. Is it not a matter of great urgency that the matter should be resolved at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. Varley: Yes, it is most important that the matter be resolved as quickly as possible. I know the hon. Gentleman will accept that the decision about the choice of reactor was put off for three and a half years. That decision was taken by this Government within five months. Steps have been taken to get the programme under way.

Dr. John A. Cunningham: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the Opposition cannot afford to be critical about his reactor policy or about decisions generally in that area, as they did absolutely nothing during the whole of their period of office? Further, does he recognise that a decision on the National Nuclear Corporation is crucial to the future of our nuclear energy programme?

Mr. Varley: Yes, it is crucial. I hope to make a statement shortly about the NNC and the Nuclear Power Company.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Does the Secretary of State accept that, contrary to the purport of the past two questions, there is now considerable anxiety about the policy of nuclear energy? Is he aware that people are becoming disturbed about the problems which we might be laying

up for the next and future generations? Before the policy is expanded, will the right hon. Gentleman consider having a thorough investigation of where we are going on nuclear policy?

Mr. Varley: I recognise the anxiety that exists in all parts of the United Kingdom about the build up of nuclear power. I think that the hon. Gentleman will be reassured when I tell him that the independent Nuclear Inspectorate is careful about issuing site licences for nuclear stations.

Mr. Palmer: Is my right hon. Friend's statement likely to include a reference to an increase in the extent of the State shareholding, as recommended by the all-party Select Committee on Science and Technology?

Mr. Varley: I would rather ask my hon. Friend to await the statement that I hope to make shortly. I think that it is likely that an increased Government stake will be acceptable.

Mr. Skeet: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the co-operation arrangement with the State authority in Canada over CANDU cannot be implemented until the NNC is set up? Does he realise that he has wasted far too many months already, and that we cannot go ahead with the SGHWR system?

Mr. Varley: I do not accept that criticism. Already preparatory work and discussions have taken place with the Canadian authorities.

Pneumoconiosis

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what plans he has for amending the pneumonconiosis compensatory scheme to include commuted cases certified before 1948 by increasing the grant for the scheme; and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Alex Eadie): The Pneumoconiosis Compensation Scheme is a coal industry scheme which has been negotiated between the mining unions and the National Coal Board. It is not for the Government to amend it. As I and my right hon. Friend emphasised in the debate on the Second Reading of the Coal Industry Bill last week, what the Government are doing is to provide a


grant of up to £100 million towards the costs of the scheme.

Mr. Roberts: Will my hon. Friend tell the House what extra grant will be required to meet the needs of the 8,000 or 10,000 people in this category? Does he agree that if a grant were allocated specifically for this purpose—I recognise that this is a National Coal Board matter—the National Union of Mineworkers would be only too willing to have the money allocated?

Mr. Eadie: I regret that I cannot tell my hon. Friend the precise cost, but it certainly would amount to several million pounds. As I have explained to my hon. Friend, the scheme was drawn up between the National Coal Board and the union. The Government have made a £100 million grant towards the scheme. Any amendment to the scheme is a matter for the National Coal Board and the unions concerned.

Mr. Alexander Wilson: I accept my hon. Friend's answer, and I think that he will accept that we give full credit to the Labour Government for finally redressing injustices that have existed in this respect over the years. Nevertheless, if representations are made by the National Union of Mineworkers, in consultation with the National Coal Board, that extra funding is required for the commuted cases and for the widows, will the Government be prepared to consider that matter seriously in Committee and to provide the necessary funds to implement the wishes of the Labour movement?

Mr. Eadie: I am grateful for the comments made by my hon. Friend on the Government's generosity. As he knows, the pneumoconiosis scheme was born out of the tripartite inquiry into the industry that was set up by my right hon. Friend when he gained office last year, the tripartite team being the National Coal Board, the union and the Government. I must tell my hon. Friend that this matter has already been discussed with the appropriate authorities. Therefore, it would be unfair if I were to suggest to him that the Government would be capable of increasing the £100 million. This has already been discussed. By any standard and by any measure the £100 million is a most generous donation towards the scheme.

Offshore Oil Industry (Government Participation)

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the negotiations being conducted about Government participation in the oil industry operating on the United Kingdom continental shelf.

Mr. Varley: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) on 19th February—[Vol. 886, c. 1338].

Mr. Fletcher: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the negotiations are being conducted on a different basis for the large operators in the North Sea as distinct from the smaller companies? Will he confirm or deny that it is the Government's policy to squeeze the smaller companies out of the North Sea into the hands of the proposed British National Oil Corporation? That is a step which may please Labour Members, but it will drastically delay the day when Britain can achieve self-sufficiency in oil.

Mr. Varley: No, it is not the objective to squeeze anybody out of the North Sea. We recognise that there will be continuing and profitable rôles for those who have taken risks in the most hazardous waters in the world. At the same time, there is a Government political commitment that must be met, namely, the intention behind the negotiations to achieve participation.

Mr. Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a tremendous campaign being waged by the oil companies to get, as a result of what could be almost termed a capital strike, the greatest possible amount of profit that can be obtained? Does he agree that it is his job, as the representative of the Labour movement, and in line with the Labour manifesto, in concert with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, to ensure that we get the maximum amount of money out of the North Sea, even if that means a slight delay in terms of the poker match or bluffing match presently being engaged in by the oil barons in this country and outside?

Mr. Varley: I can assure my hon. Friend that the manifesto commitment will be maintained. Further, we have taken steps to fulfil that commitment. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be reassured when the Petroleum Bill is published, I hope, next month.

Mr. Rost: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of the cost of acquiring majority participation in the North Sea oil industry; and what is the estimated cost of providing 51 per cent. of the development capital.

Mr. Varley: These costs will depend upon the outcome of the negotiations with the oil companies.

Mr. Rost: If the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster claims to have reassured the American oil companies that nationalisation is to be a voluntary book-keeping exercise to appease the left wing of the Labour Party, how did the right hon. Gentleman reassure the American oil companies that he was speaking on behalf of the Government?

Mr. Varley: Of course my right hon. Friend was speaking on behalf of the Government. As he made absolutely plain, the major take will come from the tax, but we need a British stake in the oil and an entitlement to it. That is the objective of the participation negotiations.

Mr. MacFarquhar: Is my hon. Friend aware of the view being conveyed by some oil company executives that a significant reduction in the price of Middle East oil would make the British medium-and small-size fields economically unviable? What is his opinion on that view?

Mr. Varley: It would depend how far oil prices came down. I hope that oil prices do come down in traditional oil supplying countries, but I do not see a great deal of evidence that that is likely to happen within the near future. That is one of the imponderables. All the statistics available to the Government show that North Sea oil is still a profitable undertaking.

British Petroleum

Mr. Ovenden: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he has any proposals to acquire a majority shareholding in

British Petroleum; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Varley: As I told the House on 15th January, the question of the BP shareholding is a matter for consideration, and further thought needs to be given to this complex issue. In reaching a decision we shall have to take into account the needs of Government policies and the interests of BP.

Mr. Ovenden: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that an assurance has been given to the Chairman of British Petroleum that whilst 20 per cent. of the BP shares formerly owned by Burmah Oil are held by the Bank of England the Government will not attempt to exercise any extra control of BP that a 70 per cent. holding would give them? Does my right hon. Friend accept that it is a fundamental principle of this Government's industrial policy that the investment of public money should carry with it public control and public accountability, and that we are being prevented from exercising such control until the shares are transferred from the Bank of England to my right hon. Friend's Department? Further, will he accept that it is highly desirable that the Government should reassert their majority holding in BP?

Mr. Varley: I do not think that I have much to add to the reply that I have already given and to the statement I made on 15th January. I can assure my hon. Friend that the disposal of BP shares that the Bank of England now holds is still under consideration, and that no decisions have been taken.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Will the right hon. Gentleman now assure the House that the Government will adhere to the undertaking which they gave to the takeover panel about the exercise of the Government's voting power in BP?

Mr. Varley: Certainly we shall adhere to that undertaking. The disposal of the shares is still under consideration. We have by no means ruled out the possibility of moving to a majority stake in BP.

Electricity (Ripple Control)

Sir George Young: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will issue a general direction to area electricity


boards to install ripple control in order to save fuel.

Mr. Eadie: No, Sir. Both my Department and the Electricity Council are actively studying the potential advantages of ripple control. The possible benefits would lie mainly in capital savings rather than in fuel savings.

Sir G. Young: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that ripple control is widely used on the Continent and that recent cost-benefit analysis has shown that a return of more than 50 per cent. would be achieved if this country adopted the same control because of the reduction that would be possible in investment in distribution and generation equipment?

Mr. Eadie: Yes, we are aware that it is being used in other countries, but it would be naïve to assume that techniques used overseas could be transplanted untouched into this country. We are studying the matter with various organisations, and no doubt the hon. Gentleman will be made aware of the results of those studies when the reports have been sufficiently assessed.

Mr. William Hamilton: Does not my hon. Friend agree that as a result of recent developments there is likely to be a substantial increase in the price of electricity, which will automatically result in a substantial reduction in demand for it? Has he had any estimates from the electricity authorities of the effect of that likely increase in prices?

Mr. Eadie: That is a different question. However, no doubt my hon. Friend read in the Press during the weekend the various assessments that have been made in this respect. No doubt my right hon. Friend will be making a statement when the time comes.

Fuel Industries (Co-operation)

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he is satisfied that there is sufficient co-operation and co-ordination between the competing fuel industries in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Varley: The industries certainly co-operate well with me and have demonstrated their willingness to work together when this is appropriate, for example, in

the current energy-saving publicity campaign. But I shall be glad to consider any particular point my hon. Friend has in mind.

Mr. Wainwright: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that sometimes in the past there has not been much co-ordination, and that that has probably encouraged various Governments to undertake pit closures? When he is giving guidance to the chairmen of the nationalised fuel industries will he bear in mind that the abundance of coal in this country far outweighs the value of what we shall receive from the North Sea in oil and gas? Because of that will he ensure that the chairmen of the fuel industries get together to formulate a national fuel plan, so that we can develop our coal mining as we should? Further, cannot something be done to encourage young people to go into the mines?

Mr. Varley: It is certainly our intention to encourage the development of coal mining. My hon. Friend will be aware of the tripartite examination and the additional £600 million expenditure to be incurred by the industry over the next 10 years. Certainly he will have seen that the recruitment figures have improved over the last few months.

Mr. Skeet: What co-operation can there be among the electricity, coal and gas industries when the retail prices of all those commodities are going up? What competitive pricing policies can there be when the industries are not allowed to compete?

Mr. Varley: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is complaining about the pricing policy. It is our intention that there should be more realistic pricing policies for these industries, and we have said so over and over again in the past 11 months.

Electricity Supplies (Free Allowances)

Mr. Mike Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what studies his Department has made of the practicality and cost of introducing a free allowance of electricity for retirement pensioners, the chronically sick and disabled and those in regular receipt of supplementary benefit or family income supplement.

Mr. Eadie: I estimate that at current electricity prices, including current fuel costs, a scheme for free allowances on the lines indicated in my hon. Friend's previous Questions, on 31st January, would cost about £150 million for pensioner households; £22 million for chronically sick or disabled persons; and £22 million for persons receiving supplementary allowances and family income supplement. The cost could be expected to rise substantially as electricity prices increase. The operation of such a scheme would cause considerable practical difficulties, and those in need are already helped through the social security system.

Mr. Thomas: Will my hon. Friend accept my congratulations that his Department has now been able to make these calculations, and my sorrow that it was not able to do so earlier? Is he aware of the impact that price increases will have on the poor and on the other groups that I have mentioned—massive increases already and a further 40 per cent. to come? Does he know how important fuel is in the budget of the poor? Does he know the extent to which the high price of fuel contributes to deaths and illnesses, particularly among old-age pensioners?
If my hon. Friend cannot introduce a simple humane free allowance scheme, such as that which operates in the Republic of Ireland, will he at least consider two-tier pricing, so that these groups in the community may consume a limited amount of electricity at a reasonable rate before having to pay high prices?

Mr. Skinner: The Common Market would not allow it.

Mr. Eadie: I am sure that on reflection my hon. Friend will agree that the Department of Energy has always tried to be as helpful as possible in providing him with information on this subject. I hope that he will accept that in the Department as it is run by my right hon. Friend there is no lack of compassion or concern for pensioners, and so on.

Mr. Thomas: I accept that.

Mr. Eadie: I am glad that my hon. Friend accepts that.
My hon. Friend has submitted his proposals to the Department and we have tried to cost them out. We are con-

sidering what we can do to help to alleviate the burden. My hon. Friend must agree that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has tried to assist by increased heating allowances, and some of my hon. Friend's suggestions are matters for her rather than for my right hon. Friend.

Miss Fookes: When the Department was making these calculations, did it take the actual consumption of a sample of pensioner families, or what they ought to have consumed—if that is possible?

Mr. Eadie: We took an estimate covering 5·2 million pensioner households, comprising 7·5 million of the total of 8 million pensioners. If 7·5 million pensoners—that excludes those in institutions—each received such an allowance, the cost would be an additional £67 million. I hope that that is the information that the hon. Lady is seeking.

Ninian Oilfield

Mr. Hoyle: asked the Secretary of State for Energy why he agreed to Chevron Oil taking over the Burmah stake in the Ninian oilfield development.

Mr. Ron Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for Energy why he agreed to Standard Oil taking over the management of the Ninian oilfield development.

Mr. John Smith: The licensees of the Ninian field proposed in January that from 1st March Chevron Petroleum (UK) Ltd., a subsidiary of Standard Oil of California, should become operator for the field, and that BP should chair the Ninian Management Committee. The change makes no difference to the shares held in the field by individual licensees, including Burmah Oil. I welcomed the news because it means that the resources for the development of this major United Kingdom oilfield will be reinforced.

Mr. Hoyle: Why was Chevron allowed to take over when BP was already responsible for the pipeline contract? It appears to me that it would have been better to use BP, which would also have kept it British, and that would have been far easier if a decision had been reached on the shares and we had a majority shareholding, so that we could have forced BP to take over responsibility.

Mr. Smith: I must make it clear that the stake of the various companies in the oilfield is not affected by the change of operator. The proposals for a change of operator were put forward by the licensees themselves, which included BP. It does not affect their shares, and there is no change in the amount of oil owned by British or American licensees.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Will the hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that he will have nothing whatever to do with his hon. Friend's suggestion that the Government's shareholding should entitle them to force BP to do things that it regards as being against its commercial interest?

Mr. Smith: As my right hon. Friend has made clear, no decision has yet been reached about the disposal of the shares. My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Hoyle) demonstrates an appropriate concern that British interests should be safeguarded in the North Sea—a concern that was not always evidenced when Conservative Members were in office.

Electricity Supply Industry (Subsidy)

Mr. Ridley: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what he now expects to be the total subsidy, including interest due but forgone, to the electricity supply industry for 1975.

Mr. Eadie: The amount of compensation for price restraint in the next financial year will depend mainly on the amount of the next electricity price increases, which are now under consideration.

Mr. Ridley: Why will not the hon. Gentleman answer the Question on the Order Paper in terms of figures? How many hundreds of millions of pounds is it? Will he please come properly briefed to this House?—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman has not made any attempt to answer the Question.
Will the Under-Secretary explain the justification for paying heavy subsidies in respect of the use and consumption of the fuel oil part of a barrel of crude at the same time as he is imposing swingeing taxation on the lighter fraction of petrol? What is the point of that?

Mr. Eadie: The hon. Gentleman, rather characteristically, is assuming

certain things. He should not do so. The deficit is expected to be about £300 million, but the amount of compensation has not yet been determined. The hon. Gentleman must be aware that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer mentioned pricing policies in his last Budget speech. It is not unknown to the House. If the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question on the other matters to which he referred, I shall be happy to answer it.

Mr. Palmer: Does my hon. Friend agree that these so-called subsidies—in fact, price stabilisation payments—were not asked for by the electricity supply industry, were not wanted by the trade unions in the industry, and were introduced by the previous administration?

Mr. Eadie: My hon. Friend is correct. The unions bitterly resented the policy pursued by the last administration. It is a bit hard now to have complaints by hon. Gentlemen opposite because this Government operate pricing policies in this matter.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: It has been widely assumed in the Press that there will be an electricity price rise of 37½ per cent. Will the Minister now answer the Question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) as to where that will leave the electricity industry in the next financial year?

Mr. Eadie: The right hon. Gentleman is aware that the increase was referred to the Prime Commission. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer mentioned getting back to proper pricing policies, but said that we could not get back to them because of the legacy and the inheritance, for which the right hon. Gentleman had some departmental responsibility. We cannot do everything at one time. We have made a policy decision and we are implementing it.

Policy

Mr. Gould: asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether it is the Government's intention to retain parliamentary control over policy questions concerning North Sea oil and other energy resources.

Mr. Varley: Yes, Sir. I fully recognise the national importance of these policy


questions and the need to remain answerable to Parliament for them.

Mr. Gould: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is a difference between parliamentary control over these important matters and the mere promise that the veto will be exercised, which is all that we have been offered at the moment? What remedy does he suggest for the situation which will one day arise when he or his successors will return from Brussels and say that on some important matter, such as the pricing or taxation of North Sea oil, they felt unable to use the veto because they were under pressure by their negotiating partners in Brussels? What parliamentary control will there then be to undo what the Minister has agreed to?

Mr. Varley: None of the decisions or actions taken so far by the Council of Ministers in any way pre-empts the decision that this House and the country will take on the referendum which will probably be in a few months' time.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, as announced in the Press, the rate of petroleum revenue tax will be given to us this week? May I ask whether it will come in the form of a ministerial statement or in answer to a Written Question?

Mr. Varley: That question does not arise from the Question on the Order Paper. It is a matter for my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Paymaster-General, and not one which it is appropriate for me to answer.

Council of Energy Ministers

Mr. Dykes: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the meeting of the Council of Energy Ministers on 13th February 1975.

Mr. Nelson: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the meeting of the Council of Energy Ministers on 13th February 1975.

Mr. Varley: The Council of Energy Ministers, which was attended by my noble Friend the Minister of State, approved a resolution on the means to be put in hand to achieve the Community energy policy objectives for 1985 which were adopted by the Council on 17th

December 1974. The resolution entails no legal commitment and, in particular, my noble Friend made it clear that in the Government's interpretation there is no conflict with our oil depletion policy. The Council also adopted a directive restricting the use of petroleum products in power stations. A number of other proposals were discussed, which the Council referred to officials for further examination.

Mr. Dykes: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Does he agree that it is rather bizarre that, since he has just confirmed that our North Sea oil sovereignty will be intact and that, none the less, we shall get the strength of the Community's energy policy around us, a lot of anti-Marketeers in this country should go on about the loss of sovereignty in the EEC, including sovereignty over energy policy, and yet be content with our assignation of powers to the IEA, which is a much greater loss of our independent decision-making?

Mr. Varley: It is also fair to point out that if we were to accept some of the Community's proposals without critical examination, some of our national interests would come into conflict. We are not prepared to take any action which means that our national interests are not properly safeguarded.

Mr. Dalyell: While it would be unreasonable to expect any definitive answer today, may we be assured that at the next meeting the whole question of our nuclear relationship with the Russians, negotiated by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, in Moscow, will be considered in a European context—especially the question of enriched uranium?

Mr. Varley: I think that some of these matters will be discussed at the next Council meeting, but no date has yet been fixed for a further meeting. Whether the specific discussions which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had with the Russians will be on the agenda is a matter that I cannot answer or anticipate at this stage.

Mr. Nelson: Is the Minister prepared to enlarge on or to give some further indication on two subjects which were discussed at that meeting on 13th February,


relating to financial support measures which will be introduced to enable the development of energy sources other than oil, and are the Government fully behind the proposal at that meeting that member States maintain a minimum level of fuel stocks at thermal power stations?

Mr. Varley: We already hold stocks at power stations. Our policy would in no way conflict with the European policy, but we want to determine where we have our stocks and at what power stations. It is better that we should do so rather than have constant reference to the Commission.

Mr. Hardy: Did the meeting consider the standardisation of nuclear reactors? Does my right hon. Friend believe that that would add to or reduce the commercial opportunities which may be presented to British reactors in the next few years?

Mr. Varley: I do not think that that specific proposal was raised at the Council. Although there have been discussions about the amount of nuclear capacity that the Community will have by 1985, we think that it is on the high side.

Electricity Fuel Surcharges

Mr. Michael Marshall: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what proportion of the electricity fuel surcharges is attributable to increased coal and oil costs, respectively.

Mr. Eadie: About 45 per cent. and 55 per cent. of the present fuel cost adjustment on quarterly tariffs is due to coal and oil price increases, respectively.

Mr. Marshall: In view of the Secretary of State's earlier comments about the need for economic realism in looking at these costs, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he agrees that the latest increases coming through because of the £3,000-a-year coalminer scheme will have a dramatic impact which may price coal and, indeed, electricity out of a number of markets?

Mr. Eadie: I think the hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that the latest settlement will lead to increased prices, but I hope he will agree that the Government have never tried to hide that. I am sure he will agree also that it is proper

to have realistic pricing policies for energy supplies.
The hon. Gentleman may be happy to know that the position will not be as bad as he indicates in relation to pricing coal and electricity out of markets, but the increase in price will be severe. The Government have never tried to hide that fact.

Mr. Biffen: Has the hon. Gentleman seen the report suggesting that Mr. Arthur Hawkins has informed Sir Derek Ezra that he thinks electricity consumption could fall by up to 3½ per cent. during 1975–76? In view of the significance of that forecast for the power generation programme itself, will the hon. Gentleman arrange to give the House at the earliest possible moment some indication of the Government's own forecast and what they believe this will mean in terms of the proposed programme for power station construction?

Mr. Eadie: I saw the matter to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention referred to in the weekend Press. All I can say is that my right hon. Friend is sitting beside me, and if he deems it necessary to make a statement to the House to amend construction and target figures I am sure he will be happy to do so.

Nationalised Fuel Industries (Directives)

Mr. Golding: asked the Secretary of State for Energy how many directives he has issued to chairmen of nationalised industries since October 1974.

Mr. Varley: Two to the chairman of the British Gas Corporation and three to the chairman of the Electricity Council on routine matters relating to the repayment of NLF advances.

Mr. Golding: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people in the coal industry are unhappy that the National Coal Board has membership of the CBI? Does he agree that it is strange for the board to contribute to a body which is so opposed to public ownership? Will he issue a general directive to the board to get out of the CBI?

Mr. Varley: I know that the nationalised fuel industries regard membership


of the CBI as being to their advantage. I should like chairmen of nationalised industries who attend CBI meetings to take every opportunity to press for and speak about the advantages of public ownership.

Fixed Offshore Installations (Advisory Committee)

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he intends to announce the membership and terms of reference of his advisory committee to be appointed at the request of the Institute of Structural Engineers.

Mr. John Smith: The membership and terms of reference of the new Advisory Committee on Fixed Offshore Installations, which my right hon. Friend has set up at the request of the Institution of Structural Engineers, will be circulated in the Official Report.

Mrs. Short: I am much obliged for that reply, and I am glad to hear that this committee is at last being set up. When the advisory committee is at work, will my hon. Friend consider very carefully the need to have a British certifying authority for these concrete platforms being built in the North Sea, bearing in mind the appalling delays which occur when our plans have to be submitted to Norge Veritas and then transmitted back here before the building work can begin?

Mr. Smith: My right hon. Friend much appreciates the close interest which my hon. Friend takes in this subject. She will be aware that among the certifying authorities is Lloyd's Register of Shipping. Most important of all, my right hon. Friend has asked the committee to investigate the means of encouraging greater participation by British designers and construction firms in the design and construction of fixed offshore structures. In appointing certifying authorities, regard must be had to independence and technical skills, and if British firms can do the job I am sure the committee will make appropriate recommendations to my right hon. Friend.

Following is the information:

ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON FIXED OFFSHORE INSTALLATIONS

Chairman:
Sir Kirby Laing, JP, MA, C.Eng, FICE. Immediate Past-President, Institution of Civil Engineers; Chairman, the Laing Group of Companies.

Vice-Chairman:
G. L. Hargreaves, BSc, C.Eng, FICE. Consultant to Department of Energy; Chairman Offshore Installations Technical Advisory Committee; Chairman, BSI Code of Practice Committee.

Consultants,
Sir Ralph Freeman, CVO, CBE, MA, C.Eng, FICE. Past-President, Institution of Civil Engineers; Senior Partner, Freeman Fox &amp; Partners; Chairman, Offshore Structures Committee, Association of Consulting Engineers.
L. R. Creasy, CB, OBE, BSc, C.Eng, FIStructE, FICE. Immediate Past-President, Institution of Structural Engineers; Consultant, Alan Marshall &amp; Partners: Former Director of Civil Engineering Development, PSA, DoE.

Construction Industry:
John A. Derrington, BSc, DIC, C.Eng, FIStructE, FICE. Head of Design Group, Sir Robert McAlpine &amp; Sons; Vice President, Institution of Structural Engineers; Past-President, the Concrete Society.
J. C. Chapman, PhD, C.Eng. FIStructE, FICE, FRINA. Technical Director, George Wimpey &amp; Co. Ltd; Former Director, Constructional Steel Reseach &amp; Development Organisation (CONSTRADO); Council member, IStructE; formerly Reader, Imperial College of Science and Technology; Consultant to British Ship Research Assn, and various ship owners.

Research and Development:
A. R. Collins, MBE, DSc, C.Eng, FIStructE, FICE, Past President, Institution of Structural Engineers; Director Construction Industry Research &amp; Information Association; Member, British National Committee for Ocean Eng.; Member, Oceanic Affairs Committee.
R. E. Rowe. MA(Cantab), ScD, C.Eng, FlStructE, FICE, Hon. Officer, Institution of Structural Engineers; Director, Research &amp; Development Division, Cement &amp; Concrete Association; Member of various Concete Society Committees.

Department of Energy:
C. H. Hunt, BSc, FIMechE, MIEE, FlProdE. Offshore Supplies Office.
P. D. Atkinson, BScTech, Petroleum Production Division.

Certifying Authorities:
T. A. Lamlough, BSc, C.Eng, FRINA. Head of Ocean Engineering Department. Lloyd's Register of Shipping.

Oil Companies:
T. E. Pitkethly. General Manager, Engineering Department, BP Ltd.

Terms of Reference:

(i) Advise on specific problems referred to the Committee by the Secretary of State, Department of Energy.


(ii) Draw attention to other problems known to, or brought to the attention of members of the Committee.
(iii) Identify and define tasks beyond the capacity of the Committee, e.g. research projects, and make recommendations for their execution.

The Committee in the first place should concentrate on:

(a) Making detailed recommendations on how the Offshore Installations (Construction and Survey) Regulations and Departmental guidance notes should be carried out.
(b) Considering whether these regulations and/or guidance notes can be further improved.
(c) Considering by what further means increased British participation in the design, construction and certification of offshore structures can be promoted.

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

Aid

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what are the latest figures available for British overseas aid; what proportion of this aid is in the form of loans and direct grant; what other terms and conditions are attached to aid offered; and if she will make a statement.

The Minister of Overseas Development (Mrs. Judith Hart): The provisional gross figure for 1974 is £338 million. Of this, bilateral aid and technical assistance amounted to £258 million, of which 45 per cent. was on grant terms and 55 per cent. as loans, mostly interest-free.
Repayment terms on loans vary according to the economic circumstances of the recipient country. Most of our interest-free loans have a grant element of 77 per cent. An offer of aid may specify the projects or purposes, and the extent to which funds are available for the purchase of non-British goods and services.

Mr. Roberts: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the level of the loan element in our aid is far too high, irrespective of the generous conditions on which the loans are made? As we move forward to the 0·7 per cent. gross domestic figure, hopefully in the near future, will she try to reduce the loan proportion of our aid?

Mr. Hart: We want to move towards that objective. We have a very good record in this matter. The target was set by the Development Assistance Committee. We have accepted that, and our performance as between grant and loan is as good as that of almost every other donor country.

EEC Aid

Mr. Blaker: asked the Minister of Overseas Development if she will make a statement about recent developments in the field of EEC aid policy.

Mr. Mike Thomas: asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether she will make a further statement on the progress of British EEC renegotiations as far as her responsibilities are concerned.

Mrs. Hart: The new Convention of Lomé, to be signed on Friday, provides for aid and trade arrangements for the Commonwealth associated countries of Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific. I regard these as satisfactorily, protecting their interests.
I am still seeking Community agreement on a firm financial programme of aid to non-associated developing countries, particularly the Commonwealth countries of Asia. This question will be further discussed in the Council of Development Ministers on 20th March.

Mr. Blaker: In view of the progress which the right hon. Lady has made in providing aid, will she say whether the last point which she mentioned is the only outstanding matter among the objectives which the Government have set themselves in their so-called renegotiations? Will she say also what is the attitude of the Governments of south Asia towards progress which has been made in connection with them?

Mrs. Hart: Continuing efforts are being made with regard to generalised preferences, which is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade. On the major issue, the matter which I mentioned is the outstanding one. It is true that one has had to deal with a dual job here. One was concerned with Commonwealth countries which were associated. That has been the deal in the negotiations which have been involved


in working out the new Lomé Convention. India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka are not covered, and that has been the second aspect of my concern in this matter, which is still unresolved. These countries themselves have made some progress in their bilateral trade negotiations with the Community, but the question of a world-wide approach to aid remains to be determined.

Mr. Thomas: Does the Minister agree that whilst some aspects of this matter may be for her right hon. Friend, the generalised preference scheme for 1975 is a great improvement on that which went before? Will she say what she is doing to ensure that the scheme for 1976 is even better? Will she accept that the Community has been flexible and helpful in these matters?

Mrs. Hart: That question is for my right hon. Friend. I think that he would probably agree that the 1975 scheme was better than the 1974 scheme. My hon. Friend will remember the tremendous criticism of the Labour Party about the move from our own DSP scheme to that of the Community at the time of our entry to the EEC. I am certain that my right hon. Friend will press for further improvements.

Mr. Ian Stewart: Will the Minister say what is the view of the Council of Development Ministers about the resources available by way of loans through its own funds and through the IMF oil facility for the most seriously affected countries? Does she believe that the provisions made so far, and which were announced by the Chancellor on his return from Washington, are likely to be adequate for the whole of 1975?

Mrs. Hart: The hon. Gentleman will recall that a few weeks ago I announced the results of our deliberations on this matter in the Council of Development Ministers. I hoped that there would be a release of the whole $500 million indicated at the Special Assembly last April. After a good deal of debate in the Council of Development Ministers over the last few months, there was in the end a release of only half that amount, plus additional food aid. On those grounds the Government decided to make a further bilateral contribution to the most seriously affected country. Something

good was done, but it was not quite as much as I hoped.

Dr. Bray: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if we were not to make any progress with India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, a great part of the population in the developing world would not be provided for? That would not be a satisfactory basis on which to recommend to the country that the requirements of renegotiation had been met.

Mrs. Hart: Clearly, judgment will have to await the eventual conclusion of this aspect of my efforts, at least. However, I have very much in mind that these are countries with the largest populations. They are the poorest countries and they demand all our efforts to ensure a satisfactory result.

Aid (United Nations Target)

Mr. Hooley: asked the Minister of Overseas Development when Her Majesty's Government expects to achieve the UN target for aid of 0·7 per cent. of gross domestic product calculated on the assumptions about the growth in the national economy set out in Command Paper No. 5879.

Mrs. Hart: The United Nations target relates to gross national product in cash terms. The White Paper on Public Expenditure to 1978–79 gives figures at constant prices related to gross domestic product. The problem is essentially one of forecasting GNP, which is not possible. But it is clear that we are some distance away from achieving the 0·7 per cent. target. We stand only at the halfway mark.

Mr. Hooley: Does the Minister agree that the crudest of calculations and projections in Command Paper 5879 are not encouraging? Is she aware, looking at those figures, that it appears that by 1978–79 this country will be giving more net aid per capita to the wealthy countries of Western Europe than to the under-developed countries of Africa and Asia? Is not this an impossibly absurd position for a Socialist Government?

Mrs. Hart: I agree that we have a long way to go to reach the 0·7 per cent. target. However, I assure my hon. Friend that not one whit of my aid programme will go to the wealthy countries in Europe. I think my hon. Friend has in


mind matters which are not my concern. As he will have seen from the White Paper, there will be a considerable increase in the aid programme in the years ahead. This problem always arises when calculating aid as a proportion of GNP. This is one of the unfortunate aspects of the target. The aid may go up, but if the GNP does not rise higher, it affects the percentage. It is a very odd calculation.

Mr. Blaker: With regard to the countries of south Asia referred to by the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Lady in answers to previous questions, when does the Minister expect to make the new arrangements in those countries, to which she is looking forward?

Mrs. Hart: We finally succeded in obtaining Community agreements in July 1974 on the principle of aid to non-associated countries, which bears on the matter raised. I now seek to achieve a hard financial programme. I do not know whether I shall succeed in achieving that, but that is my objective. We shall see.

Cyprus

Mr. Terry Walker: asked the Minister of Overseas Development if she will make a further statement about aid for relief in Cyprus.

Mrs. Hart: I told the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees on 11th February that we would make a contribution of £250,000 in response to his recent appeal for further funds for humanitarian assistance in Cyprus, following our earlier contribution to him of £500,000.

Mr. Walker: Does the Minister expect to receive further appeals from the United Nations or from other organisations? If so, what will be the Government's response to such appeals?

Mrs. Hart: I cannot be entirely specific. My hon. Friend will bear in mind that if we add all the aspects of the help we have so far given, the total will move towards £2 million. If the United Nations High Commissioner were to approach us again I think that the Government would be sympathetic in their response.

Sir John Hall: Will any part of this aid programme go to help British citizens

in Cyprus, many of whom live in conditions of considerable hardship?

Mrs. Hart: I think that the very large contribution of about £750,000—the cost of the relief aid provided by the Services in the two British sovereign base areas, financed by my Department—has been of immense help to British citizens in Cyprus.

Mauritius (Cyclone Damage)

Sir Nigel Fisher: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what information she has as to the extent of the cyclone damage in Mauritius; whether relief aid from Great Britain has been offered; and if she will make a statement.

Mr. Townsend: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what are the Government's plans to get relief aid to Mauritius, following the recent cyclone there.

Sir Bernard Braine: asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether aid has been requested and offered to Mauritius in connection with the recent cyclone disaster; and whether she will make a statement.

Mrs. Hart: Reports that I have received show that extensive disruptions were caused to the island's water supplies, power and communications. Some damage was suffered by the sugar crop.
Personnel from the Royal Navy communications station gave immediate assistance, £10,000 has been donated to the local reconstruction fund, and my disaster unit dispatched medical supplies valued at £2,000. A Royal Navy frigate is now assisting further with relief work.

Sir N. Fisher: Since this is the most disastrous cyclone that has hit Mauritius since 1960 will the Minister send further financial aid, especially to help rebuild over 11,000 houses badly damaged or destroyed, and perhaps also some technical assistance to help to assess the damage and advise on the reconstruction which is now needed?

Mrs. Hart: I am very anxious that we should do everything we can to help in this situation. It is relevant that within the next two or three weeks we shall


be holding discussions with the Mauritions in preparation for a further aid programme to them. I hope very much to be able personally to explore what else we might be able to do within the aid programme in connection with the assistance there.

Mr. Townsend: Is the damage such that the Mauritian Government will be unable to reach their sugar target, which was recently set in agreement with the United Kingdom?

Mrs. Hart: I have no indication of that. The sugar harvest begins in July. I remember cutting the first cane in July 1974. It is a little too early for me to know what the effect is. I have no doubt that we shall receive reports in due course.

Sir B. Braine: Are we to understand that we have not yet received a detailed assessment from the Government of Mauritius of the kind of help that Her Majesty's Government may be able to afford? Will the Minister accept that on both sides of the House there is anxiety to help this small but friendly Commonwealth country in its hour of need?

Mrs. Hart: The immediate devastation has been dealt with and we have tried to help in whatever way we could. My judgment is that the Government of Mauritius are now assessing what longer-term help they will need to meet the consequences of that damage. We shall be ready to help as best we can. There is a moment, after the immediate effects of disaster, when it takes a little time to reassess what will be needed.

Mr. James Johnson: Can my right hon. Friend give any estimate of the damage done by this cyclone, compared to the last devastation 13 or 14 years ago? In answer to a question last week, I was told that we were giving £10,000, plus another £2,000, plus, of course, the help that the Navy was in the harbour to give. That does not seem too much to me. When we know more, I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will expect to see much more help given to this old ally, which many of us know so well.

Mrs. Hart: I assure the House that my affections are quite as much with

Mauritius as those of my hon. Friend and hon. Members opposite. Had we been asked to do more immediately, we would have done it. We must recognise that Mauritius has developed its own economy to the point at which it is more capable of dealing with its own situation than are some other disaster areas that we have known in recent months. However, when we discuss in the next few weeks how best we can help Mauritius in the next few years, there will be no lack of readiness to do so.

DOCUMENTS (UNOFFICIAL DISCLOSURE)

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the documents published in the Morning Star on Saturday and this morning.
The documents date from December 1973 and January 1974, during the administration led by the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath). Under the longstanding convention that governs these matters, Ministers of the present administration do not have access to the papers of the previous administration, and they are not answerable for the decisions of policy referred to in the documents.
But I understand that the documents are authentic and I am much concerned as to how copies reached the Morning Star. Since criminal offences may well have been committed, the Department of Trade, which began its inquiries on Friday 21st February, has brought the matter to the attention of the Director of Public Prosecutions, who has decided that a police investigation should be carried out. The Metropolitan Police have begun their inquiries.

Mrs. Thatcher: Is the Prime Minister aware that we are very grateful to him for making this statement at the earliest opportunity? Clearly, in this specific instance we must await the results of the police investigations. But, apart from this particular case, it is generally a matter of grave concern that documents clearly intended to be in the safe custody of the Government should find their way into unauthorised hands. May I therefore ask him whether some attention will be given to the system for the safe keeping of confidential documents and information?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Lady is right on this matter. There was another leakage some two or three years ago from, I think, the same department of the old Board of Trade, which led to a public inquiry. The right hon. Lady has said that she endorses this decision. The inquiries began in the Department of Trade early on Friday morning as soon as we knew that there was a problem, and they have reached a point at which it was decided to refer them to the police. As a result of the police investigations and any proceedings which may or may not follow, should there be any further anxiety of the kind to which the right hon. Lady refers such as would justify a more formal inquiry, obviously the Government would be prepared to consider that.

Mr. Bidwell: As the Editor of the Morning Star said publicly that after receipt of these documents through the post he contacted Government Departments—including, I understand, my right hon. Friend's own Department at 10, Downing Street—for confirmation and observation and apparently got none, does that mean that so far as public knowledge of the Queen's financial affairs is concerned my right hon. Friend's administration are taking a more progressive view than the previous administration?

The Prime Minister: It means exactly that we were following the rule which has been traditional over many years. Neither No. 10 nor the Department of Trade, nor anyone else, could give any advice to the editor concerned about these documents, because, as I say, these documents are by long tradition denied to an incoming administration. That is simply all that results from those inquiries. As for companies legislation—we are talking about documents relating to a Bill introduced by the previous administration which aborted because of the February election last year—my hon. Friend will be aware that we are not planning any companies legislation this Session. So far as I know, the work that we are doing on companies legislation so far is proceeding in somewhat different directions.

Mr. du Cann: The House will be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman not only for his statement but also for the

action that he has promptly taken. Is he aware, however, that many people will feel great anxiety over this matter, reasoning that if these documents can so easily be copied and published perhaps other documents of vastly greater seriousness are also at risk? Would he not agree that it is always the case that, if confidentiality goes in any circumstance, the conduct of public or other business becomes quite impossible?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman referred to action taken. It was, in fact, taken at first light on Friday morning—or at least at the moment when first light hits the Department of Trade. In this case, I think it was 10.30. Reports had to be made to the officials concerned in the light of what information had been received overnight. With regard to other documents, I have expressed my anxiety that there were leaks under the previous administration in this area of the Department of Trade, then the Department of Trade and Industry. I think that we must now await the results of the police inquiries to see whether there is a restricted, perhaps individual, problem or whether there is something more serious which needs to be looked into.

Mr. Arthur Latham: I believe that my right hon. Friend has confirmed that these documents are authentic. Would he accept that, while any leak of information from a Government Department is a serious matter, in this instance that is something of a mouse compared with the much larger cat which has been let out of the bag? Would he care to comment on the rather devious, even deceitful, method that it was apparently intended to adopt to cover up the Royal income? Would he not agree that, irrespective of the impropriety about the leak itself, the fact that this information has been made public at present represents a public service performed by the Press?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir—nothing justifies a leak. I cannot express—

Mr. Skinner: The Lobby reporters do it every day, on their terms.

The Prime Minister: I cannot express any view on the issues on this because I have no access to what was done by the previous Government in these matters. As I have said, we have no companies


legislation envisaged in this Session and the work that we are doing on companies legislation is on rather different lines.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is more general concern about security in the Department of Trade, observing that the Secretary of State for Trade revealed on Thursday that vital information about new Government measures to improve and encourage exports was also leaked to the Press? Would he bear that in mind in the inquiry? Would he further say whether the documents concerned were classified, and, if so, what degree of classification they bore?

The Prime Minister: I will bring this matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend, who is not here to answer questions today because he is in Nigeria. I was aware, on the announcement about ECGD, that there had been some prior speculation in the Press, but some of these matters are widely discussed in consultations and I should not like to express a view, certainly not to give any support to the view that this came from within the Department of Trade. What has happened here relates to a particularly narrow area of the Board of Trade—not very different from the V and G area. But I do not want to prejudge police inquiries. We must let the police get on with the job.

Mr. Cryer: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that there is grave public concern at the idea of the Monarch's advisers negotiating in secret for protective legislation? Is not this a breach of the British constitution, whereby the Monarch is subordinate to Parliament? Would not the proper solution be to pay the Queen a salary and make her subject to tax like every other citizen and so end the need for such secrecy?

The Prime Minister: I am not aware that anything unconstitutional has occurred. There is no ministerial responsibility here in the sense of the present Government, but I note the suggestion made by my hon. Friend about the much broader question of the Civil List. I was not quite sure whether he would say that he would vote for it if it were introduced on those lines.

RAILWAY SIGNALMEN (DISPUTE)

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Foot): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the unofficial action taken and being threatened by some railway signalmen.
The signalmen concerned complain about the outcome of the major pay restructuring exercise for all British Rail employees which was finally completed last year. They are demanding a further 15 per cent. increase.
Negotiations on a new, comprehensive pay structure for the railways first began in 1972. They were always accepted as being in addition to the negotiations for normal annual settlements. The negotiations proved long and arduous, and the House will remember that they were from time to time accompanied by official industrial action which seriously disrupted railway services. In February 1974, agreement not having been reached, all the outstanding issues were referred to the Railway Staff National Tribunal, the railways' agreed and independent arbitral body. In July last year the tribunal reported after carefully considering all the issues, involving as they did the complex of all pay relativities between different groups of workers. Its recommendations were accepted by British Rail and the unions and were implemented.
It is important to remember this background in considering the present unofficial action by a minority of all railway employees, indeed a minority of signalmen. The current relativities were established only after long negotiations and a comprehensive and detailed inquiry by an independent tribunal, set up by agreement in the industry. They were accepted by all the unions and the overwhelming majority of those they represent.
It has been suggested that, because of the hardship and inconvenience the unofficial action is causing, I should intervene in some way to secure a settlement or that I should appoint an inquiry. I certainly deplore the appalling inconvenience to the travelling public that has resulted and have urged that it should end. But the present pay structure was


itself established by an independent inquiry. I would hope the House would agree that it is neither reasonable nor practical that an issue raised by an unofficial body of some kind should be referred to further inquiry. This could only undermine the established procedures of negotiation in the industry and the authority of the unions. It is a step which could greatly encourage further disruption on the railways and further afield. For the same reasons any third-party intervention is, in my view, to be avoided. Hon. Members who advocate such a course should not be misled by the plausible assurances from the unofficial spokesmen that action would stop on such an intervention. The consequences in the longer term could be most injurious to all efforts to uphold established negotiation arrangements and procedures, and to sustain the democratic machinery of the unions.
It also needs to be remembered that British Rail and the National Union of Railwayment have recently agreed on the reclassification of some 1,800 jobs in signal boxes which will lead to pay increases of between £2·95 and £5·35. Moreover, negotiations have recently begun for a new annual settlement for all railwaymen, and the National Union of Railwaymen has already indicated that the expressed grievance should be considered in the context of those negotiations.
I accept that the signalmen concerned hold their views strongly and sincerely, but I believe that they must in turn understand that they cannot secure a fresh hearing of their case in this way.
I trust the House will join with me, British Rail and the National Union of Railwaymen in condemning any continuation of these unofficial stoppages and in denying those who instigate and foster them the recognition to which their action is directed. The resolution of any grievances cannot be secured by these methods; it can only be secured through the democratic machinery of the union and the forthcoming negotiations.

Mr. Hayhoe: It is often the custom to criticise Ministers for not coming to the House to make a statement but, instead, giving information by Written Answer. On this occasion, however, we have had the Secretary of State coming to the

House, and making a long statement which contained nothing new at all compared with what he said in the House 10 days ago.
While one of course urges the signalmen to end this unofficial action which, as he said, is causing appalling inconvenience, difficulty and hardship to thousands of commuters, one asks why should the community be made to suffer because of this internal dispute within the National Union of Railwaymen? What proposal has the Secretary of State for dealing with this sort of pay relativity problem? Over two months ago my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) put this precise point to the Secretary of State, and we have had nothing from him at all.
Although one can accept his judgment that in the particular circumstances, knowing all the facts, he believes that it would be wrong to ask the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service to intervene at this stage or to set up an inquiry—he said all this 10 days ago—because he feels that the matter must be solved through union channels, will he not at least urgently consult the president of the NUR to find some way of bringing this dispute to an end? What the House is asking of the Secretary of State is action from him to protect the innocent travelling public.

Mr. Foot: I am certainly in favour of doing everything possible to protect the innocent travelling public. But I say to the hon. Gentleman and to the rest of the House that I think that they should make up their minds about this matter. Indeed, if there is any criticism of my making this statement today, it seems all the more necessary that I should have made it, because the hon. Gentleman still has not understood. There was an inquiry into the whole matter. There was an inquiry which brought to an end some of the difficulties that were experienced by the innocent travelling public a year or so ago on the railways.
The advice which it appears that the hon. Gentleman is giving is that because of this action we should reinstitute a new inquiry. The hon. Gentleman was asking whether we could have a new inquiry or an investigation by the ACAS. Either of these courses in my opinion would be accepting what the small


number of signalmen wish to secure by their action. If that is what hon. Members of the Opposition ale wanting, they should say so openly and not try to get it by a side wind.
I say to the House—I hope that the hon. Gentleman would agree—that the only way that this matter can be satisfactorily settled is in the forthcoming negotiations. It is not merely a question of the internal politics of the NUR. It is a question whether we are to sustain democracy in the trade unions and a proper system of negotiations.

Mr. Ron Lewis: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there is no internal dispute so far as the NUR is concerned, that over the past few weeks the NUR has consistently done everything within its power to urge signalmen to remain at work, and that if they would only follow the practice of remaining at work the present grievances could be looked at in the new negotiations which are already in progress?

Mr. Foot: My hon. Friend is perfectly correct. It should be stated as clearly as possible that if the advice of the NUR were followed, there would be no inconvenience to the travelling public now.

Mr. Cyril Smith: Does not the Minister agree that he has adopted an ostrich-like attitude on this matter? While it may be true that there is no dispute within the NUR, may I ask whether he agrees that there is a breakaway union involved which he is pretending does not exist? As that union does exist, will not the Minister at least agree to meet its representatives, not to promise an inquiry but at least to hear what they have to say? Is the Minister aware that I have a meeting with that union planned for tomorrow morning? Can the Minister give me any message that I can give to the signalmen in the morning which may help them to resolve their difficulties? Does the Minister not agree that he himself set up a third party in disputes, namely the ACAS? What part has he invited the ACAS to play in the dispute so far?

Mr. Foot: Hon. Members should consider what they are asking me to do. An inquiry has reported on an important and very complicated matter about differentials and the relations of different people

in the unions. The inquiry examined these matters with great care and reached findings which were accepted overwhelmingly by all the parties concerned. Hon. Members now suggest that, because of disruptive action, we should take steps either to ask the ACAS to intervene or to institute some inquiry. That is a recipe for widespread chaos that hon. Members are recommending us to adopt, particularly as negotiations will be taking place in a very few weeks in which precisely these matters can be examined afresh. In those circumstances, it would be most unwise for us to take the action suggested or implied by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe). If hon. Members want a good, simple recipe for spreading industrial chaos everywhere, they have heard it.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that his negative reply of today will be very cold comfort to many thousands of commuters or would-be commuters from Hertfordshire and elsewhere? What is to happen in the long run if a deaf ear continues to be turned to his exhortations? Is not this a task for the conciliation and arbitration procedures which he has put in place of any court? Are they not on trial in this matter?

Mr. Foot: No, I do not think that there is any criticism of the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service in any sense whatsoever. As I have repeated, an inquiry was instituted and a report was made and it was accepted by all the parties concerned. If hon. Members are proposing that the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service should be put into operation immediately, or very soon, because of disruptive action, they are proposing a recipe for spreading industrial chaos in this country.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asks what we are proposing to do to deal with the situation and the great inconvenience to which the travelling public are being subjected. I agree about the difficulties. I deplore the difficulties. The best way for them to be removed is for the matter to be settled in the forthcoming negotiations. It is not a question of anyone on my side turning a deaf ear. The deaf ear has been turned by the right hon. and learned Member, who does not seem to appreciate that these


matters can be and will be dealt with in the forthcoming negotiations.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if there were to be any change in the differential at this stage it would almost certainly lead to industrial action by another group of railwaymen and chaos over the coming months?

Mr. Foot: My hon. Friend is perfectly correct. One of the reasons for the setting-up of the inquiry in February of last year—incidentally, it was an inquiry instituted by the Tory Government—was the industrial disruption which was already taking place. Hon. Members make a great mistake if they think that we should reopen that situation.

Sir John Rodgers: Cannot the Secretary of State use his good offices to bring home to this small number of signalmen that their anti-social behaviour is causing great distress to thousands of commuters? If he cannot see any way through it at present, should he not talk to the National Union of Railwaymen and the Trades Union Congress and see whether unofficial stoppages of this nature should be included in the social contract, so-called?

Mr. Foot: One of the reasons for my making the statement today, although the fact that I have made it seems to be regretted by some, is that prior to Thursday or any other time when this small number of signalmen propose to take action they should know what the Government's attitude is.
I wish to make it absolutely clear so that there can be no misunderstanding about it. The Government are not prepared to institute an inquiry in these circumstances, for all the reasons I have given. However, the National Union of Railwaymen has been using its exertions to try to persuade signalmen not to join in this action. The NUR, with which of course I have had conversations, has done its very best to persuade the signalmen not to join the action. I hope that the efforts of the NUR to ensure that everybody is able to get to work will be supported unanimously by the House of Commons.

Mr. Dalyell: Does the Secretary of State recollect that he came under great criticism in Scotland at the time of the Scottish road haulage strike back in

November? Confessing that I was one of those who flirted at one point with the idea that he should be called in, may I ask whether he will now accept our total support? Will he remind those in Scotland who think that it is only when things are wrong in Scotland that he takes no action, and that when things go somewhat critically wrong on Thamesside and in the South-East he pays immediate attention, that they are wrong? Can he put this view of the world straight?

Mr. Foot: I am glad that my hon. Friend has repented of his previous error, if indeed that is what he is confessing to the House. I believe that the question when the Department of Employment intervenes in a dispute or when the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service intervenes is a matter of some importance. All I am saying and underlining is that if the Department of Employment or the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service were to intervene in a dispute of this character it would mean that every inquiry could be reopened within a few weeks or a few months by anybody who liked to cause any disruptive action. If that is thought to be a recipe for industrial peace, I suggest that somebody finds another.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept my sympathy for having to make his statement today, a type of statement with which I am all too familiar, having made it myself? If he cannot assure the House, as I fully accept that he cannot, that his own intervention would be helpful at this stage, will he at least assure us that he and his officers are keeping the situation under review and will accept that if this situation goes on long enough there must come a time when, either through the TUC or direct, he must take some action to avoid this inconvenience to commuters?

Mr. Foot: The right hon. Gentleman started by offering me his sympathy. What I much prefer to have from hon. Members opposite is a clear and honest statement of their views instead of their seeking to have it both ways. I believe that if I were to make the kind of statement the right hon. Gentleman invites me to make it would only encourage this tiny number of signalmen to proceed with their action, because they take the view that if they only continue for long enough


they will be able to force me or the Government to institute an inquiry. I say that they will not succeed in that purpose. I wanted to make that point clear. Any hon. Gentleman opposite who wishes to be honest with the country will say the same.

Mr. Spriggs: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the statement he has made this afternoon. I declare an interest. On behalf of over 200,000 railwaymen who accepted the last pay agreement which covered the signalmen who are now quarrelling with the rest of the railwaymen about a differential, may I remind my right hon. Friend that some of us in the House who have a personal interest in the matter wish to add our appeals personally to this small group of signalmen who are causing such hardship to commuters? We believe that it is unfair and wrong of them to do so. However, it is disgraceful for criticism to be offered to my right hon. Friend by hon. Members opposite who left a miners' strike, a three-day week and a blackout when they went to the country.

Mr. Foot: My hon. Friend is quite correct in saying that the settlement that was reached on the railways last year was one of the best settlements that has been reached for railwaymen as a whole in recent time. However, we are not saying that it is perfect and, if there are errors in it, the NUR and British Railways have said that they will correct it in the next set of negotiations, which are just about to begin. In these circumstances, it is absurd for any hon. Member to suggest that we should start a new inquiry which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell) said, would immediately disrupt the whole of the settlement which was made last year.

Sir Bernard Braine: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that hundreds of thousands of commuters in Essex alone have been suffering not merely inconvenience but considerable hardship, not for the past few weeks, but for the past three months? The right hon. Gentleman has invited us to make positive proposals. Does he not recognise that either the signalmen have a genuine grievance or they have not? If they have a genuine grievance, is it not right that this should be ascertained without delay? Would

it not have been right to ascertain it without delay two or three months ago? If the signalmen have not a grievance, should they not be disciplined by British Railways? Is there not a case for an inquiry at once without further disruption of services for so many commuters?

Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman does not seem to listen to what has been said. He has apparently never faced the facts of the matter. There was an inquiry last year into precisely these matters—

Sir Bernard Braine: indicated dissent.

Mr. Foot: It is no good the hon. Gentleman shaking his head. There was an inquiry into all these matters by an independent body, the arbitral body which exists for the railway industry. That body produced its report, which was accepted overwhelmingly by the railwaymen. The hon. Gentleman is asking that very soon after that inquiry has been published we should reopen it because some people are causing disruptive action. I think that is particularly foolish when there is the possibility, as I have already underlined, of fresh negotiations in a very short time. If hon. Members want to have industrial peace and want to assist their constituents, they will do better if they support the view which I have expressed instead of pretending that there is some other way in which peace can be restored on British Railways.

Mr. Crouch: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept from me my absolute support in demanding, asking and pleading with the signalmen to go back to work, and continue their complaint from there? However, I must say to the right hon. Gentleman, too, that it is no good his coming to the House today and saying nothing to us, and then pleading with us, with all the oratory at his command, to believe that there is nothing that he as Secretary of State can do. Surely he is not a bureaucrat now. He is a Secretary of State and should be able to find a politician's way out. Can he not find some way that is not a statutory way of meeting these men? Can he not meet them in his room here at the House of Commons?

Mr. Foot: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman said in the first part of his question, even though he appeared to


withdraw it in the second part. It is not a question of bureaucracy or anything of the sort. The question is whether a person is prepared to speak honestly and straight about this matter. There is no way by which this dispute can be settled by the Government instituting an inquiry. There is no way by which it can be settled by my meeting these signalmen in the House of Commons or in any other way.

Sir Bernard Braine: How?

Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman asks how. I have been trying to get it into his thick skull for about three or four months, or whatever the period is. The hon. Gentleman causes more problems in this House than the rest of the House put together. I have been trying to tell him. [Interruption.] I am referring to the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine). There is a perfectly good way by which this matter can be settled, and that is by negotiations which are available in the next few weeks. That is the way in which it can be settled. The hon. Gentleman likes to pretend that he is looking after his constituents, but what he would be doing would cause much more trouble to his constituents for many more years.

INDUSTRY BILL (STANDING COMMITTEE)

Mr. Tom King: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I first thank you for the ruling which you gave on Friday on a matter which had been raised by a number of hon. Members about the composition of the Standing Committee on the Industry Bill. We obviously understood and accepted your ruling, Mr. Speaker, that this is not a matter in which you can get involved. We also appreciate your statement that if there is any way in which you can help you will remain willing to do so.
I think that the concern expressed in the House underlines the very wide feeling in all parts of the House that the outcome of the Second Reading debate which resulted in a majority of 14, which was equivalent to one seat in the Committee, resulted in a majority of three in the Standing Committee when the selection was made.
Further to your ruling on Friday, may I ask whether the Leader of the House has made any request to make a statement? This matter was raised. Although the date was incorrectly given to you as Tuesday, the Standing Committee is, in fact, meeting on Thursday. We are not aware whether the Committee of Selection is meeting before Wednesday. This is a procedural matter for the House, and I think it is still a matter of considerable urgency. The Leader of the House, like you, Mr. Speaker, has a responsibility to all Members of the House—to the minority parties as well as to the majority parties.

Mr. Peyton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand the limitations of the Chair and I do not wish to add to your difficulties, but we are in some real difficulty here. It is very important indeed that if we are going to continue to use Standing Committees, the House should have confidence in the way in which they are set up. In this instance, Mr. Speaker, it appears to us that the Committee of Selection made a mistake. On Second Reading there was a majority of 14 for the Bill and 48·9 per cent. of the House voted against the Bill. [Interruption.] If the Patronage Secretary will be kind enough to keep quiet, I shall be able to complete my remarks much more quickly. He is, incidentally, one of the most talkative Chief Whips we have ever had, on either side of the House. In the Standing Committee, 45·7 per cent. of the House are opposed to the Bill. I suggest that it is very important that the Committee of Selection should have another look at this. I understand that it will meet next on Wednesday, and I suggest that the first sitting of the Standing Committee should be postponed till Tuesday in order to give the reconstituted Committee a fair chance to look at the matter properly.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the limitations of the Chair, and the Chair is very conscious of those limitations. These matters were all raised on Friday or before. The Committee of Selection is an independent Committee of this House. I cannot give it directions. But it is expected to take a general view of the opinions held in all parts of the House. I wonder whether this continuing argument might do more harm than good.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): I entirely agree with you, Mr. Speaker. This is a matter entirely for the Committee of Selection. That Committee will meet on Wednesday and it may be that it will bear in mind what has been said in the House. So far as I can see, there is nothing wrong with the composition—[Interruption.] No, nothing at all. The Committee cannot take any account of the majority. If hon. Members will read the Standing Order they will see that the Committee has to take account of the composition of the House. Short of quartering one of the National Members, the Committee could not be fairer.

Mr. Thorpe: Some of us did not intervene on Friday, Mr. Speaker, because you indicated that these matters would be taken into account and that Friday was not the occasion; also, we understood that the Leader of the House could not be here. Some of us heard the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) say that he would listen with respect to whatever the House said, and for that the House was grateful. But there are, in my submission, two matters which are the responsibility of the Leader of the House. First, if the Committee of Selection meets, as we understand it will, on Wednesday and if it should vary its decision, there may be additional Members or substituted Members who at 24 hours' notice will be expected to master all the amendments which will be raised in that Committee. It therefore seems right that in any event the first meeting of that Standing Committee should be postponed. I submit that that is a matter for which the Leader of the House has a responsibility.
The second point, from reading Standing Order No. 62, is that clearly the Committee of Selection had not taken into account the composition of the House. It is quite clear that a Committee of 35 should consist of 18 Members of the Government, 15 Members of the Opposition and two Members of the minority parties. It happens that there are 39 Members of those parties, 34 of whom voted against the Bill and only four of whom voted in favour, and it is one of those four who has been put on the Committee to

represent the 39. [Interruption.] It may well be that the acting Chief Whip, in the absence of the Government Chief Whip, thought that he had pulled a fast one. But he will not get away with it.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Motion relating to Television Broadcasting of Proceedings may be made after the time for opposed business, and if so made, the Question thereon shall be put forthwith.—[Mr. Edward Short.]

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I understand that this motion is debatable. It seems that the House ought not to pass it without some indication that this form of motion will in no way be taken as a precedent. By its terms it pre-empts the possibility of a closure. Indeed it provides in effect for a closure without a Division. In general, of course, the only proper time for a closure is when the Chair in its wisdom thinks it appropriate that the House should consider whether the debate should continue and when the House has had the opportunity to express its opinion upon it. Unless this motion is controverted now, it has exactly the same effect as a motion for the closure accepted by the Chair and duly carried by the House at some time after ten o'clock.
There is a further and minor inconvenience in this form of motion. It is within your recollection, Mr. Speaker, that some years ago arrangements were made for motions suspending the rule to be taken only at ten o'clock in the event of their being controverted. This afternoon we have, in a sense, two innovations together in this motion.
I quite understand that there is a special purpose, which probably would be acceptable to the House in any case, in the framing of this motion. Nevertheless, unless it were clearly understood that no precedent could be drawn from it, I would suggest that it should not be passed unless there is also an assurance that the matter will be placed before the Select Committee on Procedure. If this type of motion were to be repeated it would, in effect, bring about an alteration in procedure which I do not think would be acceptable to many hon. Members.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): This form of motion has been used on many occasions. The House will be expressing the view that the time between now and ten o'clock will be an adequate time to discuss these two motions. Certainly we shall not use it as a precedent. We shall judge each occasion on its merits. There is nothing unusual about the motion. It has been used on many occasions.

Mr. Speaker: The only point raised by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) with which I have to deal is the question of the closure. As for the first motion, it is still for the Chair to accept a closure motion if it thinks fit. On the second motion, I agree that under the terms of the business motion it is automatically closured.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,
That the Motion relating to Television Broadcasting of Proceedings may be made after the time for opposed business, and if so made, the Question thereon shall be put forthwith.

PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSE (BROADCASTING)

4.14 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): I beg to move,
That this House authorises an experiment in the public sound broadcasting of its proceedings, to be held in accordance with conditions approved by the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services).
It will be convenient to discuss at the same time the motion relating to television broadcasting:
That this House authorises an experiment in the public broadcasting of its proceedings by television, to be held in accordance with conditions approved by the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services).
The two motions before the House fulfil an undertaking in the Gracious Speech of October last year to the effect that the Government would provide a further opportunity for the House to come to a decision on the broadcasting of our proceedings. There are two motions to be decided.
The first motion proposes an experiment in sound broadcasting of our proceedings and the second proposes an experiment in televising our proceedings. Both motions provide that the detailed arrangements for these experiments would be made by the Services Committee of the House in consultation with the broadcasting authorities. I emphasise that what is before the House today, therefore, is simply the question whether there should be experiments in television, sound or both.
If the House should decide in favour, there will be a subsequent opportunity, when the Services Committee has reported on the outcome of the experiment, for us to come to a view whether we are in favour of the permanent public broadcasting of our proceedings.
Perhaps I could indicate the kind of experiment which the broadcasting authorities have suggested in our discussions with them. We have made it clear that for the experimental period we shall look to the authorities to meet the cost both of making the record and of using it. They have agreed to do this for the limited period involved in the experiment. However, if the House were eventually to


decide in favour of some form of permanent broadcasting of our proceedings, clearly there would need to be further detailed discussions with the two authorities about how such permanent arrangements should be financed.
Perhaps I could explain the point of view of the broadcasting authorities about permanently financing the broadcasting of our proceedings. They take the view that the making of a visual equivalent of Hansard should in the long run be Parliament's affair. The cameras, videotape recorders and the staff required for a continuous record of our proceedings should, they say, be funded by Parliament and the use of this material, for a fee, and the editing and relaying of it in suitable programmes, should be for them.
I have assured the two authorities that their agreement to pay the cost of an experiment will not prejudice discussions on longer term arrangements. There are some minor costs, estimated at about £5,000, which will be met by the Department of the Environment.
I come next to the duration of a television experiment. The broadcasting authorities have in mind a period of about three weeks. For radio this period might be rather longer. They would be willing to consider varying the length of their experiments to fit in with the wishes of the House. They will, of course, listen to the debate today. But their agreement to finance the experiment has been on the basis of a three-week television experiment and a four-week radio experiment. I understand that any significantly longer period would place considerable pressures on staffing resources of the highly specialised standard required.
If the discussions between the broadcasting authorities and the Services Committee could be concluded quickly I understand that the experiments could take place before the Summer Recess this year. I recognise that this timing may not prove to be feasible, particularly for television. However, the broadcasting authorities would do their best to meet the wishes of the House in this matter.
As to coverage, I understand that the authorities have in mind broadly the same kind of coverage as that suggested when we last discussed the matter in 1972. For television this would mean that the BBC would put on nightly half-hour sum-

maries of the day's proceedings. In addition the BBC would use recorded extracts in news bulletins and perhaps cover one or two Questions Times and perhaps a major debate in the experimental period.
The IBA on the other hand proposes to show recorded visual extracts in its nightly national and regional news bulletins and perhaps also some live or recorded coverage of Question Time and particular debates. The television broadcasts by both authorities would be in colour.
For radio the arrangements can be much more flexible. I understand that the authorities have in mind mainly the use of recorded extracts in news bulletins and the "Today in Parliament" type of programme. The use of recorded extracts by local radio would be an important aspect.
One of the objectives of any experiment would be to try to gauge the extent of general public interest in such broadcasts and not merely that of more specialised audiences. I have accordingly asked the two authorities to bear in mind the need to have at least some of their coverage at main viewing times.
I turn briefly to the question of the physical arrangements for any experiment because I know this concerns a great many hon. Members.

Mr. John Mendelson: Before my right hon. Friend leaves the introductory part of his statement, may I ask him whether the two authorities have suggested that there might be someone who is a Member of the House, perhaps some representative of the Services Committee, who will be associated with the broadcasting and television authorities during the experimental period? Or do the authorities demand total and absolute editorial power and responsibility?

Mr. Short: Certainly the editing of the programmes is one of the most important aspects of the matter, and I shall say a word about that in a moment.
Sound broadcasting poses no major problem in the physical arrangements required, but television undoubtedly does. Hon. Members will have had opportunity to judge something of this matter for themselves from the demonstration in Committee Room No. 6—which, I may say, is continuing today until, I believe, eight o'clock this evening. They will


see there what the broadcasting authorities consider the necessary level of lighting and the quality of picture produced in our present standard of lighting in this Chamber.
But demonstrattions in a Committee room, however well arranged, cannot give an entirely accurate picture of what will happen in this Chamber. I understand that, although it may not be necessary to alter significantly the power of the lighting in the Chamber in order to ensure an adequate picture, it may be necessary in some places to alter its character. I am sure that the broadcasting authorities will do all they can to avoid any discomfort to hon. Members. I know that this is a factor which has deterred some Members in the past, including myself, from supporting an experiment, and it is clearly a matter which can be satisfactorily resolved only in the light of experience in an actual experiment. Nevertheless, I felt that a demonstration in a room upstairs would help hon. Members to assess this factor in making up their minds.
I have been assured by the broadcasting authorities on two counts: first, that if extra lighting is required it will come from outside the Chamber, from clerestory lights above us, so that there will he no heat problem; and second, that the levels of lighting required will not in any way he comparable with those used at the State opening of Parliament, which, I am sure, would be totally unacceptable to all hon. Members in every part of the House.
Finally, and perhaps most important of all, there is the extremely difficult question of editorial control. It is clearly essential that even in a short experiment the proceedings of the House should be seen in a fair and balanced way. Any summary of our proceedings poses considerable problems of fairness and editorial judgment. It would be only too easy to give a quite misleading picture of the activities of hon. Members in this place.
I think that it will be generally agreed that these problems of balanced reporting have on the whole been successfully overcome, in the context of reported speech, in the daily programme "Today in Parliament". Indeed, it is almost the only

BBC programme on current affairs which attracts little or no criticism. But television, of course, poses far more difficult problems of editorial balance.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify one matter for me? If we vote for the motions, we are, I take it, saying that we shall allow edited broadcasts to go out. What about those of us who feel that there is a good case for certain highlights of Parliament's business to be televised in their entirety? Have we to vote against the motion tonight, or, if we vote in favour, will there still be opportunity for that to be considered?

Mr. Short: I have told the House of the sort of programmes which the broadcasting authorities are proposing to put out.
Television, as I say, poses much more difficult problems of editorial balance because the factors involved in producing a balanced visual report are far more complex and subjective. As the House knows, the broadcasting authorities are already under obligation to treat controversial political matters with proper balance, with accuracy and with impartiality. I have no doubt that they will do all in their power to fulfil their obligation, which, in the case of the IBA, is statutory and, in the case of the BBC, is agreed.
This also is one of the aspects of the television experiment which can be judged only by results. I am sure that the Services Committee will wish to be assured by the broadcasting authorities about the editing aspect of the experiment, and I imagine that the greater part of its discussions with the broadcasting authorities—apart from the question of physical arrangements in the House—will be concerned with the editorial side of it.
I do not wish to argue the issue for and against the broadcasting of our proceedings. The ground has been well covered in the past and will, no doubt, be covered again during the debate. I simply say that, in my view, we must weigh the undoubted interest in Parliament which the broadcasing of our proceedings would arouse and the effect that this would have on our democracy generally against the equally undoubted change in the character and atmosphere of the


House which would result. We must weigh one against the other.
As I see it, the issue is whether our democracy would be better served by our bringing the cameras and microphones into our Chamber or by keeping them out, and whether the public are adequately informed of our debates and Questions at present by the two broadcasting authorities and the Press. All will agree that the public have a right to be informed adequately, so the question is whether it is necessary to take this additional step to assure that right. That, I suggest, is the issue before us today.
I emphasise again that what we are discussing at this stage are proposals for an experiment.

Mr. James Wellbeloved: My right hon. Friend was kind enough to give Written Answers to some Questions from me, and I got the impression that he would give some of the details of finance in his speech to the House today. Could he give us the capital cost of installing the equipment here for televising our proceedings, and the annual recurring cost for sending the signal out? As I understand it—perhaps my right hon. Friend will confirm or deny these figures—the capital cost would be about £250,000, and there would be about £1 million annual recurring cost to get the signal out of this place for transmission.

Mr. Short: The capital cost of permanently televising our proceedings is a matter which the Services Committee must go into before it reports back to the House.
The decision today is not a Government matter. It is entirely a matter for the House, which the House will decide on a free vote. I hope that, with those few opening remarks, I have assisted right hon. and hon. Members by reminding them of some of the issues involved.

4.27 p.m.

Mr Edward du Cann: As I have the good fortune to be called first after the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House. I wish to say at once that the whole House greatly appreciates the speech which he has just made. Whether one be for or against the motions, all of us recognise that his painstaking approach to this matter is very

much in the interests not only of individual Members and this House but of Parliament as a whole. We are, therefore, very grateful to him.
I think it right that there should be an experiment both on radio and on television. It should be understood clearly, however, that if we have these experiments they will certainly lead to continuing practice. Once we start the experiments, we shall have broadcasts on radio and television with us, and with us for ever. I happen to think that that is right and that it is inevitable.
It is an astonishment to me that we should have talked about this matter for as long, I believe, as 15 years since the late Aneurin Bevan first mentioned it in a speech. It is an astonishment to me that it is 10 years since the Select Committee reported in favour, and it is an astonishment to me that we should have needed to discuss the matter some seven times, I believe, in the past decade or so. In my view, this place is the weaker if it is not fully reported to our fellow citizens, and reported in ways which they can plainly see, understand and feel involved in.
Second, I wish to discuss a little how we should begin, and I shall take first a matter to which the right hon. Gentleman, somewhat to my surprise, did not refer, though I acknowledge that he made only a short speech. I have great pride in this place, as we all have. I believe in its capability and I believe in its competence, I believe that this Parliament of ours is still a model for all democracies in terms of manners and of performance. Yet like other hon. Members who love this place, I am one of its strong critics. I have to acknowledge, as I believe we all do, that the quality of our debates is lower than it might be, and there are occasions when even the great debates in this House seem utterly pointless. They are set pieces and are foregone conclusions. Even more exasperating to the back-bencher is, to put it no more rudely, the occasional indifference with which our original and brilliant ideas are treated by the Ministers who reply to the debates.
However, there are exceptions to that, as the Leader of the House indicated. One of the best debates I have listened to in my time here took place only three months ago on the Prevention of


Terrorism Bill, as it was. The more non-party debates we have the better.
Of all the remarks made to me by my constituents who come to the Public Gallery from time to time, the one I regret and resent the most is that nobody appears actually to be in the Chamber when debates are in progress. It is as though our constituents expect the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition to be locked in continual mortal combat. The reality is, as we explain to our constituents, that there are many other attractions in other parts of the building. There are meetings of the Parliamentary Labour Party which, as the world knows, produce the best knockabout show since Nervo and Knox. Not to be outdone, the Conservatives have the 1922 Committee. It is remarkable that in the Conservative Party at least there are no fewer than 27 party committees of various sorts rivalled only in number by all-party committees. Then there are the Select Committees and Standing Committees.
I suggest to the Services Committee that when it studies this matter it should bear in mind that it is not only in the Chamber that the most important work is done in Parliament. Even our Question Time is not the best way of Parliament controlling the executive. In these increasingly complex days, particularly on financial matters, that can be done only through Select Committees.
I hope that the Leader of the House and those responsible for deciding this matter will not ignore the possibility of televising some of the Select Committees from time to time. Consider putting Ministers in front of, let us say, subcommittees of the Expenditure Committee for two hours of continuous cross-examination, or putting the most senior of our distinguished civil servants before the Public Accounts Committee to be examined, for example, on the reports of that most distinguished servant of the house, the Comptroller and Auditor-General. Such broadcasting would be a far better way of showing Parliament truly and competently at work than could be demonstrated by much of the high jinks which goes on across the Floor of the House at Question time. This practice is followed in the United States,

and, while I do not wish us to ape or emulate everything that that legislature does, none the less it is a precedent which we would do well to bear in mind.
The sooner the Services Committee starts its work the better. Parliament needs broadcasting because democracy needs constant exposure. It is not enough for us to praise it and to speak our pride in it. It must be seen to work. The prestige of Parliament depends absolutely upon the confidence of the electorate. The electorate can have confidence only if it feels itself to be daily concerned with the work we are trying to do here.
There is the question of payment. I am a strong advocate of reductions in Government and local authority expenditure, never more needed than now. Nevertheless Parliament should pay, whatever the expense, for in the end we must realise, remember and preach that democracy is priceless.

4.35 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I agree with the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) that once we allow the broadcasting or televising of the proceedings of the House they will be here to stay. It will not be an experiment. Those who argue that we should go ahead on the basis of an experiment, see what happens and then stop it if we wish, are talking nonsense.
I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman when he said that the quality of the debates here is often so low. That is not a fair criticism. I have been a Member of the House longer than anyone else and I swear that steadily, year by year, the standard of the debates has risen. It is now much higher than it was 10 or 20 years ago. It has improved largely because hon. Members are drawn from a wider section of the community. Many more Members are drawn from the professional classes. To maintain that the standard of debate is low is a difficult case to advance in the context of this debate. If the standard is too low, why should we televise it? Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that by putting television cameras in the House we should raise the standard?
I was surprised at the right hon. Gentleman's proposal that we should also


televise the Committees. There would be confusion. Which Committees should be televised—all of the Committees all of the time? That is not a sensible suggestion. If I had the choice of televising some of the more important Committees or televising the Chamber I should prefer to televise the Committees, but I do not want either televised. In the United States some of the congressional committees are televised, but the Senate and the House of Representatives are not. The Americans were absolutely right to make that decision.
The decision of the House so far not to bring television into the Chamber is in the interests of our democracy. It is suggested that in former years there was far greater confidence in Parliament than exists today. One of the purposes of those who advocate televising our proceedings is to restore that confidence. In past years the standard of debate was much lower and it was subjected to constant criticism and attack by commentators, writers and newspapers. During the early part and middle of the century it was constantly said that the House of Commons was a farce. I remember as a youth—I was brought up in a political family—that it was common to talk about the House of Commons as a talking shop or a gasworks. It was ridiculed the whole time.
In spite of that healthy ridicule, the public had confidence in Parliament and in our parliamentary democracy. An enormous proportion of the electorate voted at the elections and if something went wrong while Parliament was in recess, there would be an immediate demand for the House to be recalled. There was strong confidence in Parliament in those days and it is as strong today as it ever was. The talk of a fall of confidence and lack of respect today is unfounded.
True, many important matters which affect the lives of theelectorate do not now come before Parliament. There are industrial disputes such as coal strikes and railway strikes, there is inflation, and other developments over which Parliament has no control. There may be a feeling that some important matters bypass Parliament. But if there is any lack of interest and confidence in Parliament, which I question, it is not because people are unaware of what is happening

here. There is no reason to believe that interest and confidence would be increased if we televised Parliament. Televising Parliament might well have the reverse effect.
Some people say, in favour of the argument for televising our proceedings, that we must move with the times. They say that if the character of our debates changed a bit, that might be a good thing. Some people believe that all change is desirable, but most of us do not. Change is not necessarily desirable. The case for it must be shown. We must be fully convinced that the televising of the House, with its strength and weaknesses, would increase confidence in our proceedings and not weaken it. I have heard no argument to convince me that it would.

Mr. Phillip Whitehead: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he is using precisely the arguments used for the exclusion of the Press in 1771?

Mr. Strauss: That is the most ridiculous of all arguments. No one questions for a moment that it is desirable in any democracy that there should be the maximum publicity. It is accepted that it should be possible for all constituents to find out and read what their elected Members of Parliament are saying, to have reports of our proceedings in Hansard and the Press. Nobody questions that. But what we are considering today is whether we want to add another form of publicity. Is it necessary or desirable? The principle of publicity is accepted.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Does not the right hon. Gentleman accept that in the Strangers' Gallery we have an expression of the principle that the public have a right to see and hear what goes on in this Chamber? Does he not agree that radio and television coverage is simply an extension of that principle, of that right to hear and see?

Mr. Strauss: I do not agree at all. People who are particularly interested in parliamentary affairs should have the right to come and see what is happening here. But whether it would be desirable to televise the proceedings of the House, and whether it would alter the character of parliamentary debate, which is the important issue, is an entirely different matter.


It cannot be said that the fact that people can come to the Strangers' Gallery makes a case for televising our proceedings, which would then be much altered, to the detriment of our democratic system.
I do not want to speak for longer than necessary, but I must mention another argument that is often used. It is said that there was opposition to televising party conferences, but that now that they have been televised nobody objects, and it is all right. Party conferences could not be more different from this deliberative assembly. They are public meetings where people go on to the platform to speak for five minutes. That is all that we are allowed at our party conference, unless we are sneaking officially from the platform. In five minutes speakers do not make a reasoned, argued case but probably make a dramatic, emotional appeal, a minute or two of which can easily be selected for television. It is good fun. It is significant that those parts of the speeches that are televised are always the most sensational, usually the peroration. People know that if they make such a speech it is likely to appear on television.
If we televise our proceedings, the cameras are bound to pick out, and the editors will select, those portions of the speeches which are dramatic, lively and sensational. Moreover, every hon. Member will know that he must make that sort of speech if it is to be televised and seen by his constituents. That is inevitable, and if it happens it will be damaging to Parliamentary debates.
Those who want the change seem to ignore the difference between a deliberative assembly, such as ours, and an arena for oratory, where people are trying to persuade an audience. Here if we are doing our job, we are not trying to persuade a large audience. We are trying to persuade each other in the intimacy of this Chamber, trying to persuade the Government to do something or other. It is an entirely different approach, and an entirely different type of speech is needed.
Our present type of approach and speech has made this Parliament distinctive and different from most Parliaments in other parts of the world. I believe that it is our

strength. If we change it to an arena for oratory and declamation, Parliament will lose gravely in its importance and esteem. It will certainly not gain.
I should like to read an extract from the leading article in today's issue of The Guardian. The article is much like the speech made by my old friend, Mr. Crossman, when he initiated a debate on this matter in the House some time ago. His speech was meant to be in favour of televising our proceedings, but he made such a well-balanced argument that many people thought that he was arguing the other way. He made such effective points against televising our proceedings that many hon. Members went into a different Lobby from that which he intended.
In many continental countries the proceedings are televised. The Guardian leader writer comments:
There is, though, a difference. The House of Commons is more of a debating chamber than a declamatory one. Members are expected not so much to orate as to expound and to score points off each other—and, in an ideal non-party world, the side which had scored most points would win the division. Most other European Parliaments prefer oratory to debate, the resounding appeal to the quick answer, the set speech to question time. The Commons is mote akin to the Oxford Union than it is to the Roman Forum. A House like this is naturally more reluctant than other Parliaments to widen its audience boundlessly, even though in doing so it might both educate and entertain them.
Notice the word "entertain".
I think that the leader writer's analysis is correct. If we do what he and other people want us to do, we are bound to move more towards a Parliament of declamation and oratory. The House will inevitably lose its present deliberative character. That would be regrettable.
Once we start on this, we cannot stop, It may well be popular in the sense that there will always be an audience which will want to listen or look at the television of the proceedings of this House. They may get good entertainment from it. Many hon. Members will support it, too. It will be a marvellous opportunity for them to get their speeches over to the country and to their constituencies. I can imagine the demand to speak and the disappointment when hon. Members are not called to speak on a matter affecting an industry in which


their constituents have a special interest, such as the coal industry if they represent a coal area. If they are not called, they may feel it is necessary to make some sort of demonstration to show their constituents that they are here and that they are busy, active and keen. One cannot blame them. That sort of thing is bound to happen if Parliament is televised, and it will be plainly damaging to Parliament.
It is no use saying that once we start the broadcasts we shall find out what public opinion says about them. Most people will be indifferent. Some will say "I enjoy them." Some Members may relish the opportunity of popularising themselves on the screen. But the decision whether such televising is good or bad for our democratic processes is not qualitative, quantitative or objective. We cannot quantify the effect and say that it will do more good than harm.
There may well be arguments about whether the lighting will be unpleasant, whether the cameras will get in the way, and all the rest of it, but those matters are unimportant compared with the basic problem we face. That will be whether the televising of proceedings in the Chamber will be good or bad for our democracy. Moreover, the effect will be a gradual one and may not be significant until a period of five years or so has elapsed. The effect on public esteem will be gradual, and it might then be too late to do anything about.
I suggest that, for all these reasons, it is dangerous to alter the character of this Chamber and of our debates in a system which has stood us well for many years. It is foolish to make such a fundamental change without any knowledge whether its results will be good or bad. If the results are bad, we shall not be able to alter them. I believe that the results will be bad.
I ask the House to hesitate and to say that the House of Commons, with all its inadequacies, is a fine instrument of our parliamentary democracy. It is esteemed and respected. We shall lose by making it into a place of entertainment where Members court instant popularity. That is not what Parliament is for, and I hope that the House will reject the proposal.

4.52 p.m.

Mr. David Steel: I do not mean it in any

perforative sense when I say that the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) is one of the most traditionalist Members of the House. Some of the arguments which he adduced against televising the Chamber are arguments which are to be weighed in the balance, and in the case of television it is a balance of argument. But when the right hon. Gentleman speaks of the character of this House, he uses it in a rather exclusive sense. He has spoken of the character of this place within these four walls and he wants to retain its exclusive nature. The burden of the case on the other side is that we should use the most effective medium of communication that is available to the public today—namely, television. I shall vote for both motions on the Order Paper tabled by the right hon. Member the Leader of the House.
In the few moments at my disposal, I should like to direct my main argument to the motion on radio. It was interesting that the right hon. Member for Vauxhall did not refer at all to the radio experiment. I am sure he will concede that many of the objections which he sees in the televising of our proceedings do not apply to radio. Where they apply they apply to a much less degree, but in some respects they do not apply at all. There may be many hon. Members who will not be prepared to give their assent to television experiments but, nevertheless, may be prepared to give their assent to a radio experiment, and they will want to judge whether television should be allowed here.
My interest in radio stems from the fact that in 1968 I was Chairman of the Sub-Committee of the House of Commons Services Committee which conducted a closed circuit radio experiment. It was unfortunate that when we published our report and reported back to the main Select Committee, that Committee voted by a narrow majority against our report. The effect was that the report on broadcasting was never discussed at all in this House, Indeed, this is the first time since 1968 after that experiment was conducted that the House has had the opportunity to discuss the Committee's findings.
The radio experiment was useful. It lasted a month, the BBC had complete editorial control and produced internally


a series of programmes of the regional news bulletin kind, and coverage of Question Time and of a whole range of debates. They were made available to hon. Members to listen to in Committee rooms. However, the House never had a chance to pass judgment as to whether it thought that to be a good or bad experiment. The main House of Commons Services Committee at the time officially declared opposition to proceeding with sound broadcasting on financial grounds. However, the cost of sound broadcasting is minimal compared with the cost of television coverage.
It is fair to say that the then Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart), was a strong opponent of the broadcasting of proceedings. He saw the possibility of a sound radio experiment as the thin edge of the wedge for television. I believe the right hon. Member for Vauxhall concedes that it is possible for the House to proceed to sound broadcasting and to proceed no further. That is the one point at which one can stop. Therefore, I appeal to hon. Members who are hostile to the idea of television at least to give their assent to sound broadcasting.
In our report, which is still available in the Vote Office, we suggested that two Committee rooms should also be wired for sound. One was Grand Committee Room 14, since it was thought that the Scottish Grand Committee and the Welsh Grand Committee proceedings would be of interest to the broadcasting authorities in Scotland and Wales. We also suggested the wiring up of Committee Rooms 15 and 16 in which specialist or Select Committees sometimes sit, which might also be of interest for sound broadcasting.
The whole basis of the experiment was that a continuous tape was to be made which would be sent directly to Broadcasting House and that on major occasions the radio channel could take the proceedings live. Let us take the Budget as an example. We all know what happens at present. The Chancellor of the Exchequer makes his Budget Statement, which contains a number of proposals of wide interest. People tune

in to their radios and televisions and a series of commentators run about with pieces of paper and give second-hand accounts of what has been said in the House. At the same time gaggles of Members rush across Parliament Square to stand under umbrellas to give their comments to the television and broadcasting media outside the House. Would it not be far more satisfactory if the public could see and hear what was going on in the Chamber?

Mr. Peter Morrison: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that a good deal of the Budget Statement would not be fully understood without the services of commentators explaining exactly what the Chancellor meant in a given sentence?

Mr. Steel: I accept that comment but the news can be interpreted and related to the public in different ways. Radio 3 might be the appropriate medium for those who are interested in the details of finance and could listen direct to the Chancellor's words. On the other hand, Radio 4 could be used merely for substantial extracts and also for interpretation. We must allow the maximum flexibility.
This brings me to editorial control. I dissent from the amendment on the Order Paper tabled by the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead). I do not believe that this House should set up a Committee to try to control how broadcasting is to be edited. This House should steer clear of things which it is not competent to do. Look at our catering—another area, where it is far better to leave things to the professionals! We have the ultimate sanction of withdrawing the right to receive broadcasts if it is thought fit. I believe that the proposal tabled by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House that the Services Committee should lay down the broad outlines under which the experiment is conducted is the right one.
I conclude by reminding the House that in 1641 we passed a resolution making it a breach of privilege to report our proceedings. In 1771 we were still sending printers and publishers of our proceedings to the Tower, including the then


Lord Mayor of London. In the debate in that year there was a minority in this House who averred
That the practice of letting the constituents know the parliamentary behaviour of their truest representatives was founded on the truest principles of the constitution.
They lost on that occasion, and for many years the House went on denying the public proper access to reports of its proceedings. We would be foolish to do that yet again and to deny the public the use of the most immediate medium that is available to us.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Philip Whitehead: It is the practice in this House to declare an interest to one's opponents. I also wish to declare an indisposition to my Friends since I am still suffering from the after-effects of chicken pox, although I am told by my medical hon. Friends that I am no longer contagious. I am told that I am now a burnt-out case. I hope that I shall no longer infect the House.
In parliamentary terms I hope this debate is not a burnt-out case, but I feel that there is some slight lethargy about our proceedings today. We have been here so many times before. In the past few years we have debated this matter on three or four occasions and each time the motion has been narrowly defeated. Having lost my own Parliamentary Broadcasting Unit Bill some months ago as a result of the more arcane proceedings of the House, which we may shortly be revealing to a wider public, I welcome the initiative of my right hon. Friend the Lord President in allowing Parliament in its own time to debate the matter once more.
I shall speak only on television. I believe that the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) has dealt adequately with radio. As he says, there has already been a radio experiment. I cannot believe that we would be so nervous today that we would not go as far as we went some seven years ago. The Select Committee at that time found that the radio experiment was adequate and satisfactory. I believe that if we approved the radio motion we would find that the experiment would be adequate.
It is right that the House should devote most of its time to the consideration of television. It is true that television is now the more powerful medium. My right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) the Father of the House, was right to direct the burden of his attack upon it. I hope to go through his attack point by point and answer it.
There seem to be three main reasons for the House to shy away from even an experiment. The first reason is the one that my right hon. Friend the Father of the House put forward—namely, that an experiment is bound to succeed. My right hon. Friend suggested that once an experiment has taken place nothing thereafter can stop it becoming the form and practice of the House. I remind him—

Mr. John Mendelson: If what my hon. Friend is saying is to be a foretaste of the deliberate inaccuracy that we shall get when the House is televised, my worst forebodings are confirmed. My right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) the Father of the House, did not say that it was bound to succeed. He repeated what was said by the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann)—namely, that once we agree to an experiment the process will continue and we shall not be able to stop it. My right hon. Friend said nothing about the quality of the success.

Mr. Strauss: I said that I thought it would be horrible.

Mr. Whitehead: One of the virtues of having these matters permanently on the record is that where inaccuracies exist they will be permanently recorded. I had the impression that the Father of the House said that the experiment was bound to become the permanent practice of the House. I withdraw the word "success" in that context. It was my impression that my right hon. Friend believed that the experiment would become the due custom and practice of the House.
For reasons which I shall explain I do not believe there is any reason for believing that the experiment will necessarily become the custom and practice of the House or that it will necessarily be a success. I speak with some professional


knowledge of these matters. There are reasons for supposing that in some instances the television experiment might be a dismal failure.
The second and more usual argument advanced for not even going so far as an experiment in televising the House is that it will add to the power and arrogance of the television producers and to the broadcasting establishment, which is sometimes felt to challenge the power of Parliament. Thirdly, there is the argument that, whatever happens in the course of the experiment, the procedures which will be introduced will, in some curious and unexplained way, alter and change our proceedings, and diminish Parliament itself, while elevating the buffoon and devaluing the stateman.
I feel that all three arguments are based on mistaken ideas. There is no guarantee that we can get the television experiment right. I have some reservations about it. But how shall we know without carrying out the experiment, and perhaps doing so for a rather longer period than the three weeks which seemed to be supposed by the broadcasting authorities and my right hon. Friend the Lord President? I very much question whether we can learn all that we need to know in just three weeks. What time of year, for instance, would we use for the experiment? The parliamentary year varies. There is a time of year when Second Reading debates predominate and there is a time that is dominated by Report stages. We want as wide an experiment as possible.
If we start with the proposition that the cameras come here to Parliament, we must ensure that we have the right cameras at the right time and in the right place. I commend all hon. Members to pay a visit to the small exhibition in Committee Room 6.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Whitehead: I note that several hon. Members say "Hear, hear". I left Committee Room 6 only half an hour ago. I was informed that only four Members have been there today. My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) and I have separate interests in this matter. We visited the exhibition on Thursday and we found it

an illuminating experience. I suggest to all hon. Members that they look at the three cameras in the exhibition and beat in mind the great difference between the experimental LDK/5 camera, which can operate with natural light or, for example, with the present light level in the Chamber, and the Marconi MK VIII camera, which will be used by the BBC and by the ITV to bring their own experiments into the Chamber in the next few months. The difference is considerable.
We must consider the matter not only in terms of what it will mean to our proceedings—there will be the smallest intrusion in terms of lighting works for example—but also in terms of the cost involved. I hope that we shall be able to discover as a result of the experiment the nature of the permanent realities.
My own preference is very much to say that if we are to have the experiment it should be expressed clearly today that we want it to be conducted with a light-intensive camera, such as the LDK/5 which is not yet in production, that can operate with 10 or 15 foot candle-power. That lighting is precisely what we have in the Chamber now. With cameras of that type slung below the Gallery, with operators only in the Gallery, with no technicians of any kind and with no intrusive wires on the Floor of the Chamber, the experiment would be a rather different proposition to anything which the 1966 Select Committee could have considered. It would be a very different proposition from what was realistically considered in the 1972 debate. That is the proposition before us today.

Mr. David Crouch: On the technical point about the choice of cameras, I understand from the technicians in Committee Room 6 that the LDK/5 camera will not be available for 12 months. That is what I was given to understand last Thursday.

Mr. Whitehead: The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) has led me to my next point. If we were to carry out the experiment with the light-intensive camera—I think we should do so as that would approximate to the reality of what we might want thereafter—it would be necessary to postpone the experiment until 1976. We could go ahead in the next few months with the radio


experiment. I believe we should and I believe we shall—

Dr. M. S. Miller: My hon. Friend is proceeding as if the subject of television were an unmitigated blessing. Does he not accept that many people believe that television in itself is not such a wonderful thing as he seems to suggest?

Mr. Whitehead: Amazingly enough, some of those people are known to me. I shall deal with their views shortly. I was hoping to say that there were circumstances when even I, unequivocally committed as I am supposed to be to the notion of this experiment and thereafter to the permanent broadcasting of our proceedings, might have cause to think before allowing the installation of equipment within the Chamber which might of itself alter the nature of our proceedings.
That brings me to the question of what form the broadcasting experiment and subsequent broadcasting should take. As the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles said, we must face the reality and the fears expressed by the Father of the House. It does nothing at all to dismiss them and to laugh them off as irrelevant to our proceedings.
There is a real fear among hon. Members on both sides of the House that the centre of debate has shifted to the televsion studios and away from this place, that news has shifted to "news values" that reflect the merit and reward system by which television producers progress, that there is a trade in stereotypes and an extra emphasis on confrontation that essentially diminishes the serious coverage of politics. Because this is the case, and because some hon. Members see their friends who are well connected in television terms, or particularly glib in their presentation of a specific case, always upon television when they are not, on what Aneurin Bevan used to call "the ipse dixit of Broadcasting House", but now on ITN as well, they automatically resent, and I think with some justice, what televsion has done in terms of the coverage of politics.
They feel that if television came here, this Chamber would become another outside broadcasting unit, just one more television studio to be used at the convenience of these same television execu-

tives, to be made a kind of extended extravaganza to be slotted into a particular programme whenever they wished. That, I know, is roughly the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone, who smiles in recognition of these arguments.
I believe that, in fact, the Chamber could avoid that very simply if it chose and if these fears were taken seriously—as they are by some of my hon. Friends—by following the course set out in the amendment which, in its wisdom, the Chair is not to call today. We could set up a parliamentary broadcasting unit analagous to the Hansard unit and responsible to a Committee of the House, not so that Parliament shall manage the news and not so that Parliament shall control the news or say what goes on and what is said and how it would be edited, but simply so that we shall be the people in the first few faltering steps of this great experiment in broadcasting our proceedings to see that the proper people are recruited and the proper procedures carried out when broadcasting goes on.
A Fabian group under the late Richard Crossman, of which I was a member, deliberated on this for some time three years ago. We reached the conclusion that, if there was to be a broadcasting experiment, a parliamentary broadcasting unit should be set up. We should take the whole experiment in easy stages and first there should be closed circuit pictures and video tape records, which is what most correctly would be described as a television Hansard, and, later, if the experiment proved successful, a subscription service to clubs, universities, newspapers and broadcasting units, such as the cable television companies, which will increasingly become part of the scene in this country. That would be live transmission of the proceedings in the Chamber as they were happening.
There should also be continuous transmission from time to time on both radio and television. That should happen within the period of the experiment, and let us hope that we have within the period of the experiment, if it takes place, a debate of sufficient importance and merit for one or other of the broadcasting organisations to devote a whole television channel to it, as well as sound radio, for-the evening of the debate.
Then there would have to be—and this is where we face the problem of editing head on—an edited "Today in Parliament" programme of some 30 to 50 minutes' duration. That would have to be very carefully compiled and edited, and it would be necessary initially for Parliament not to supervise the editing but to have some say in the selection of the men to do the editing. After that and if the experiment were adjudged by the House to be a success, there could be unrestricted access for all news and current affairs broadcasting.
That would end the rivalry between the ITV and the BBC that disfigures so much of the sports coverage and current affairs programmes. It would be improper to have two sets of rival cameras and two sets of jostling technicians and producers in the Chamber arguing over who got which shots and which pictures. There would have to be only one unit, and my proposed House Broadcasting Unit would be the best way.
We must also face the fact that to some degree our debates may be altered. This was the last and perhaps the most important point of my right hon. Friend the Father of the House. It is said that the whole nature of our debates would be altered. I do not think that they would be altered any more than the pressure of modern life will alter them anyway. We cannot possibly take the position, if we honestly question our procedures, that what we have is sacrosanct for all time and that our present timetable, absurd as many of us feel it to be, is sacrosanct for all time.
As it happens, our present timetable is greatly to the convenience of television, because television, too, is a nocturnal pursuit and works the kind of hours that we work. However, if we were to shift our timetable, television would have to follow. It would not be necessary to co-ordinate all our procedures with the nine o'clock or ten o'clock news.

Mr. Toby Jessel: Does not the hon. Gentleman thinks that the timetable would put some emphasis on Question Time and that the system of Question Time would have to be altered in that all Questions would have to be read out, with the result that we should deal with even fewer Questions?

Mr. Whitehead: No, I do not. I think that Question Time is a somewhat overrated part of our proceedings, but if it were to be televised it would have to be done with the use of captions to describe the Members asking the Questions superimposed on the feed, but no more than that. We should not have Questions read out, or a commentator intervening, or anything of that kind.

Mr. Jessel: In that case, people would not know what the Questions were about.

Mr. John Mendelson: They do not know now.

Mr. Whitehead: The last argument that haunts the minds of all opponents to televising the House is the rôle of our well-known friend the parliamentary buffoon. It is said that the parliamentary buffoon is likely to hog our proceedings. Is he not with us already? Is he not indulgently treated here by a tame parliamentary Lobby that faithfully reports what he does, but does not always report as accurately as the ignorant observer in the Gallery the sort of impact that he actually makes? Are not some of these people already treated by the House as pets, very much too much so? May it—dare I suggest—be the case that if the proceedings of the House were televised, there would slowly become an effective pressure from this place upon those who so misbehave and misuse the Chamber already, so that they might mend their ways more adequately than would otherwise be the case?
Of course I make no comment on the disciplinary procedures of the Chair, which are exemplary, but might not the Chair be helped by public opinion if a wider public opinion outside could see some of the things that actually happen here? It is no good raging at television if television shows these things. That is like the rage of Caliban seeing his own face in the glass. We have to be prepared for some comments about the proceedings of this place that may not of themselves be particularly palatable to us.
We have the means to open up the most powerful form of mass communication known to man as a direct link between the Government and the governed. In these days, when the only alternative to cynicism about Parliament


seems to be a certain tawdry populism, let us rejoice that we can carry our proceedings to the nation that voted us here.
I have already said to the Father of the House, and I repeat this finally to him now, that there is a resemblance between what he has said and the arguments of Colonel Onslow and Mr. Wellbore Ellis—that appropriately named Member—and others attacking the Press in 1771. Colonel Onslow at that time—I do not know whether he was related to the hon. Member for Woking (Mrs. Onslow).

Mr. Cranley Onslow: I know not, but I am on the hon. Gentleman's side in this.

Mr. Whitehead: The hon. Gentleman will recollect that his distinguished ancestor, speaking of reporting debates, said:
this practice had got to an infamous height; that members were represented to the world as saying what they did not say; and that their interests in their boroughs were often hurt by it; that it have never been done in former times; even in the most violent opposition to Sir Robert Walpole, no transactions or speeches were published, except during the intervals of parliament, and then only in a decent manner".
Our transactions have to be seen as they take place. It serves the wider democracy if we do that. What do we have to be afraid of that the Bundestag has not, that the American Congress has not, that Australia has not?

Mr. John Mendelson: Congress is not televised.

Mr. Whitehead: My hon. Friend says from a sedentary position that Congress is not televised. But the committees of Congress are televised, and it is in its interlocutory procedures that Congress mostly resembles this Chamber. That is why Congress very wisely allows the televising of Congressional hearings.

Mr. Roderick MacFarquhar: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a fundamental distinction between the Press, and objections to the Press which he has stated, and television in that if an hon. Member is incorrectly reported in the Press and taken up on it by his constituents, he can send them a copy of Hansard which they can then read? However, if there is some distortion in a televised broadcast of what an hon.

Member said in the House, there will be no way in which he can make available to his constituents a full record which would put it into perspective.

Mr. Whitehead: I am not suggesting the abolition of Hansard. There will still be a full written record of our proceedings, and that record can be compared with the transcript and, indeed, the tape of the proceedings. As the tape of the proceedings is an accurate representation of what has gone on here, it can properly be called a television Hansard.

Mr. MacFarquhar: Then there is no difference between radio and television for broadcasting purposes.

Mr. Whitehead: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Order. I must ask hon. Members not to interrupt the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) because he has already taken 21 minutes. If we all behave like that, nobody will be on television.

Mr. Whitehead: My hon. Friend must forgive me. I shall take the hint from the Chair. I hope that my hon. Friend will do the same, particularly as he has only just come back into the Chamber.
We have nothing to fear from this experiment. All the major legislatures to which we would look with any admiration and fellow feeling have already had the experiment. Most of them now have their proceedings broadcast in some form as a permanent part of their democracies. I think that we should do the same.

5.22 p.m.

Sir Paul Bryan: I start by declaring my interest in broadcasting as a director of Granada Television and of Greater Manchester Independent Radio, better known in the North as "Piccadilly Radio". I also express my particular and personal interest in the broadcasting of the proceedings of the House as a Member of the 1966 Select Committee and the then Shadow spokesman covering that subject.
For the last 10 years or so I have therefore taken part in this continuing debate on whether we should persist in forbidding the cameras to come into this Chamber and photograph us at our normal work on our own terms while at


the same time willingly going into studios to appear before them on terms laid down by the broadcasters.
I think that the Father of the House, who has left the Chamber—I am afraid battered by the arguments that have been against him—has been well answered by the hon. Members for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) and Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel). There was only one moment when I wondered on which side the hon. Member for Derby, North was. That was when he described the scene of jostling and competing producers.
I think that the House started correctly on this trail in setting up a Select Committee. In those days less was known about television, and certainly less was known about the effect of television on politics. Under an admirable chairman, Tom Driberg, a mass of evidence was taken. I believe to this day that the main recommendation of that Committee was right: that the House should make available to the broadcasting organisations and to others a feed of our proceedings produced by a special House of Commons broadcasting unit, analogous to Hansard, under the control of the House.
A second recommendation, rejected by the House by one vote, was that a closed circuit experiment should be conducted, after which a decision could be reached. In my view, that second recommendation was wrong. Anyone who saw the closed circuit television experiment in another place, with its dreary, long-drawn-out presentation of their Lordships debating "Sport", will understand why.
To win conviction, an experiment must, as far as possible, reproduce for a trial period the actual conditions under which the broadcasting of Parliament is to take place. By definition, television broadcasting means that the picture is broad cast; that is, widely shown and available for everybody to see, to evaluate and to comment upon.
Closed circuit television, again by definition, confines the picture, in this instance, to the few in Parliament who have the time to look at it.
Surely, as Parliament is a national institution, as we are elected by the nation, as people's television programmes, about which they mind very much, would

be affected, the nation has a right to be included in the experiment. Indeed, only by allowing them to see and comment upon it would the experiment be valid. I believe that the evident interest of the public in what they see during the experiment will finally decide the issue in the eyes of hon. Members. I believe, too, that it will excite far more interest than anybody imagines.
Any previous experience of broadcasting is almost irrelevant to the subject that we are studying. The televising of the Opening of Parliament portrayed Parliament in a uniquely untypical activity under uniquely unacceptably bright lights. The experience drawn from the televising of party conferences, the United Nations, the Watergate Congressional committees and foreign legislatures, all different in kind one with another, is not a useful comparison with the broadcasting of the proceedings of this House.
I agree with the hon. Member for Derby, North that this experiment must be very carefully prepared, though I do not go all the way with his plan. I should recommend an experiment which, if successful, developed stage by stage into an operation covering both Houses and some of the main Committees. We and the broadcasters and the nation would learn as we went along, but we, the Members of Parliament, would have the final say. I include radio and television when I speak about broadcasting all the way through my speech.
Stage one could be an experiment—the longer the better in my eyes—of a feed from a House of Commons controlled broadcast unit of the full proceedings in this Chamber alone to the BBC and ITV. They would use that feed as they wished—presumably in a "Today in Parliament" or "This Week in Parliament" type of programme—for illustrating the news and current affairs programmes and, to a much greater extent than many people anticipate, in regional programmes. The House of Commons broadcast unit for stage one would have to be a temporary ad hoc unit produced by the BBC and ITV. I am sure that this first part of the experiment would show that all the technical difficulties, about which hon. Members seem to be worried, have by now been overcome. Experience of stage one would be sufficient for both


Lords and Commons to decide in principle whether the proceedings of Parliament should be broadcast.
If so, stage two could be introduced. This could set up the House of Commons broadcasting unit on a permanent basis, extend the TV and radio feed to universities, news agencies and other interested bodies, and extend coverage to another place.
Stage three might proceed to the televising of some Committees and the beginnings of a TV library. In the long run, I regard the recording element to be as important as the day-to-day televising. This could run into big money involving, as it would, the storage of tapes and some sophisticated type of retrieval, presumably computerised.
In past debates right hon. Members as important and sensible as the present Speaker of the House of Commons have winced at the idea of anybody outside this House being allowed to edit a record of its proceedings. If this is really unacceptable to the House, we can say goodbye to the prospect of broadcasting Parliament at all.
Can anyone imagine the BBC or ITV accepting a ready-made programme to which they were allowed neither to add comments nor to make any cuts? What would the public say when they discovered that they were being allowed to see Parliament only as we, the Members, wanted them to see us? Indeed, what would they say today if we allowed Hansard to be published only if it had previously been edited by ourselves? In the words of Lord Hill, "I do not think this would redound to the credit of Parliament."
I believe that our experiments will lead to a broadcast output almost exactly parallel to Hansard, a broadcast Hansard from which organisations will apply for extracts just as a large range of organisations use extracts from Hansard now.
I think we should remember that this broadcast Hansard will already have been edited twice inside this building before it ever reaches the BBC. You, Mr. Speaker—or Mr. Deputy Speaker—are the first editor. You, and you alone, choose the Members who are to speak. We do not always agree with every choice you make, but we concede that, by and large, in

each debate you choose a selection of hon. Members, calculated to reflect the views of the House as a whole. It would be rather a healthy change to see on the screen somebody selected by this House and not by the broadcasting authorities and, what is more, in his own environment, his own place of work.
The second editing on these premises is by the director of the House of Commons broadcasting unit, as he selects from the five cameras the picture which is to appear on the screen. This is largely a technical operation, but it should put to rest the fears often expressed in past debates that cameras would search out those among us who were snoring or behaving in other vote-losing ways.
Once the video tape has left the building, it would, of course, be at the mercy of the broadcasting organisations; but is this really such a deadly risk? The BBC and the ITV, by the terms of the Charter and the Act, are required to be impartial. Complaints of partiality on about the same scale come from all the political parties, so I do not doubt that they succeed in being impartial. But do we not already put ourselves at far greater risk of partiality by appearing in studios and subjecting ourselves to the danger of loaded questions? I believe that the broadcasting of Parliament would be such a unique challenge to the broadcasting organisations that they would compete with each other as never before to produce a responsible programme.
In the debate of 1966 the late Richard Crossman, who led the debate in favour of the motion, warned the House that only about 2 per cent. of the material recorded would appear on the screens. I think that was misleading in two ways. First, even if it was 2 per cent. of all our proceedings, including Private Members' Bills, Ten-Minute Rule Bills, Adjournment debates, and so on, it would seem far more, because what would be covered would be subjects of real general interest.
In addition to the 2 per cent., there would, as has been said earlier today, have to be a lot of explanation and comment. We who are accustomed to our proceedings here do not realise how mysterious the House is to people outside. One has only to talk to our friends who watch from the Strangers' Gallery to learn how little they understand of our proceedings. There


would undoubtedly have to be a lot of explanation of what was happening.
There would be days on which a high proportion of our business would be of real interest, but this is something no one call tell. We may suggest the Budget debate, but this can often be as dull as ditchwater, and hopeless for televising. Other less promising business on the Order Paper can, to one's surprise, turn out to be quite scintillating. It is difficult to tell how it will turn out.
In his figure of 2 per cent. Mr. Crossman made no allowances for regional use of the broadcast Hansard, and this I am sure will multiply the percentage used to a great extent and be one of the chief features of broadcasting proceedings of the House.
Let me give an example of what I mean. Last Wednesday in this Chamber there was a debate on the Second Reading of the Coal Industry Bill. It received little coverage in the Press—although it was an important Bill—because it was of interest to so small a section of the public. I am convinced that had our proceedings been televised the debate would have received a showing regionally. The first clause of the Bill is about the sufferers from pneumoconiosis, of whom there are thousands, and most speakers on the Government benches dealt with that subject. The debate would undoubtedly have appeared on local screens in Wales, Scotland and Yorkshire.
Two important speeches were made during the debate, one by my hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) and one by myself. I do not expect the House to believe me when I say that those speeches were not mentioned in The Times; nevertheless they would certainly have been on the local screens. Our two constituencies share the Selby coalfield. That is what we were talking about and that, I assure hon. Members, is of vital interest to a large community. These are the debates that should find a place on the local screens.
Those words "find a place" lead to one of the two major snags which have to be faced by those who favour the broadcasting of Parliament. With the success of the Open University, with the tremendous demand for more access to broadcasting, and now possibly the advent

of televising Parliament, there will be a lack of space, especially on ITV, which has only one channel. Many of us could easily indicate what should be left out; but one man's aversion is always somebody else's favourite. So there would be that problem. I draw the attention of the Annan Committee to this dilemma and to the possibility of providing a fourth channel.
The second snag is cost. All this will be expensive. Eventually it will be millions rather than thousands, and the expense starts at a time when the Government are heavily overdrawn and the BBC and ITV are as badly placed financially as they have ever been. All I ask is that hon. Members keep a sense of proportion. If the House elects to go ahead with the televising of its proceedings it will make a historic decision. I hope it will not be thwarted for lack of a sum equal to, say, one-ten thousandth of the total expenditure of the Government in one year.

5.38 p.m.

Mr. John Mendelson: As the debate proceeds I find it rather interesting and a trifle curious that hon. Members should refer to what was said against the proposition to televise the proceedings of the House in the past but pick out only those arguments which are easiest to knock down. They carefully leave out many of the other arguments that were adduced in the previous debate and do not deal with them.
I regret the absence at the moment of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead), who made a detailed and interesting case to which I shall have to refer in his absence.
I regret, also, the absence from the Chamber of the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), who made his speech and disappeared. I hope that this is not to become the custom if the House is televised. I hope that people will not pop up, be photographed and then leave the Chamber.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the practice he is describing is likely to be halted if our proceedings are televised, because hon. Members will stay in their places?

Mr. Mendelson: No, quite the contrary. I think the practice will spread,


because Members will think that once they have been photographed they do not have to be here for the rest of the day.
I should like to deal with the points made by the right hon. Member for Taunton and my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North. The right hon. Member for Taunton emphasised the fact that the House was not fully reported. That was the first fallacy he introduced into the debate. He assumed that if the House were televised it would be fully reported. Nothing could be further from the truth. I follow that assumption with an argument which I adduced when the matter was debated under the Ten Minutes Rule, when the proposition was defeated by a majority of 26 votes.
We must oppose the motion to televise our proceedings because there will be a clash of media. The House of Commons is a workshop. Television is an instrument to report what has been staged. However, the television companies are saddled with the idea that they must rivet the viewers to their seats, otherwise the companies will go out of business. I make no special reference to commercial television companies since the argument applies equally to the BBC and other companies, however financed. Uppermost in the minds of the television companies must be the need to retain their audience. No one who has worked actively in television can deny that.

Mr. Tom Ellis: A considerable proportion of the Welsh language programmes of the BBC and privately financed companies appeal to a limited audience. Nevertheless the companies still practise that kind of entertainment.

Mr. Mendelson: I do not want to enter into considerations of devolution or of what the Welsh do. I am no expert on that subject. I could not help the situation if I commented off the cuff. If my hon. Friend assures me that that is what happens, I accept what he says. However, I do not think that that argument should determine the outcome of the debate.
The television and sound broadcasting companies' need to retain their audience is decisive. To illustrate my argument, an hon. Friend made a long-distance broadcast with another hon. Member, during

which they were required to wear earphones. Since he was still in possession of his earphones, one hon. Member heard something which was not meant for his ears. The producer, who was a few hundred miles away, sent a message to the man on the spot: "Make them do it again because it was not dramatic enough." That is the approach required by the media.
Part of the statute of the BBC is that it must further the process of education. However, the Corporation does not have clean hands. A few years ago I had an experience with the BBC programme "Today", which reached several million listeners. Someone spoke for about five minutes on the day before the House adjourned for the Summer Recess. That person said "Parliament is now going off on a 10-weeks' holiday." At the end of the programme I telephoned the producer and said "It is wildly misleading to give the impression that people are taking 10 weeks' holiday, that no work will be done either in the constituencies or in the House of Commons. In your statute there is an obligation upon you to educate as well as to inform and entertain. Will you allow another Member of Parliament, or someone else who knows the situation, five minutes tomorrow, or on some other day, to give a view as to what happens." They argued with me for 20 minutes to the effect that they did not have the time, that it was inconvenient, and that it was not desirable. At the end of the argument they said 'We propose that when the next recess starts we shall invite you or another Member of Parliament to do the job." I said "Will you please make a note of what you have just proposed?" They agreed. The time for the next recess came round. Being meticulous, I telephoned the BBC. I said "You proposed to allow time for a balanced view of Parliament, which is one of our most important institutions." The young man said "I am sorry, I am not the person you spoke to before." I said "I asked for a record to be made of our conversation." He said "I am sorry; I can find no record." I said "Do you want to live up to your undertaking?" He said "We have no time." That was the end of the matter.
We are now debating whether to hand over the control of the reporting of the House of Commons to an outside body.


That important proposition has historic significance—not the number of cameras, nor the lighting, nor the fact that we have not done it before.

Mr. Whitehead: My hon. Friend's point from his personal experience related to hon. Members being used as pawns by television organisations outside the House. That behaviour will be impossible with the televised transmission of our proceedings, where Mr. Speaker edits the proceedings.

Mr. Mendelson: I knew that I would evoke that response when I gave the two examples. Having foreseen that reaction, I decided to quote those two personal experiences.
It is wrong to assume that handing over the reporting of our proceedings to an outside body will remove all danger. I submit that the danger will be increased, not diminished.
I now refer to the general proposition that the institutions responsible for reporting will have to report the work of Parliament. The proposition that the House of Commons is a workshop suggests a close parallel with a court of law. The official earlier name for the House was the High Court of Parliament. Although it would be immensely dramatic and instructive, no one proposes that we should introduce television cameras into the law courts. Much human interest would be involved in a nine-day murder trial. Nothing could be more interesting or more educational. Yet nobody proposes that the television companies should be allowed into the courts.

Mrs. Helene Hayman: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is an immense difference between the amount of right and proper public interest in the formation of laws that affect the country, and the dramatic value to be gained from watching the passing of the laws, rather than the execution and the judgment of them in individual cases in courts of law?

Mr. Mendelson: No, I do not agree with that at all. The proposition is entirely fallacious. The real test of any law is its application, and there can be no more instructive application than in a court of law, as anyone who knows about the law

will immediately agree. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I saw several eminent lawyers nodding their heads. I will withdraw the word "anyone" and say instead that some hon. Members with active experience of the law agree with that proposition.
Why does no one propose that television cameras should be introduced into the courts? Because it might influence the proceedings, they say "We do not want an outside machine influencing what happens in a court." There is need for a great deal of change in the House—every generation of parliamentarians has taken that view—but I do not want that change imposed by a machine filming us at work. The change which is needed is that which arises from the experience of hon. Members and the work that they are doing.
I do not believe that the people to whom this would be handed are unbiased. I believe in giving examples. A topical example relates to a book by Professor Uwe Kitzinger called "Diplomacy and Persuasion", about Britain's entry into the Common Market. This learned gentleman did a great deal of research and explains in his book, for students and others, how this country entered the EEC. No one will accuse me of not being topical in the run-up to the referendum campaign.
Professor Kitzinger is in favour of our entry and has no complaint about the campaign. Those who wanted us to enter the EEC—the European Movement and others—set up an institution called the "Connaught Hotel breakfasts". In the year before the vote on entry people met regularly for breakfast at the Connaught Hotel. The European Movement's breakfasts consisted of a number of people, including friendly television producers. It was found that among their numbers were several who felt it their public duty to give a pro-entry point of view.
Professor Kitzinger explains in great detail how it was strategically decisive to ensure that the man who sub-edited the news and selected material for bulletins was a pro-entry broadcaster—

Mr. Whitehead: Is my hon. Friend still quoting?

Mr. Mendelson: My hon. Friend seems to be getting a little uncomfortable, but he should let me proceed; I listened carefully to his speech.
Professor Kitzinger says openly that he found people willing to select items for broadcasting in accordance with their bias. I am not talking simply about a broadcaster being in favour of our entry. Professor Kitzinger says that those people were not so useful in that carefully managed campaign. What mattered was the selection of items.
So the proposition is that we hand over selection not to a group of academics straight off a desert island but to people with their own deliberate bias who will act accordingly. I do not see why we can hand it over to those people but not to a Committee of Members. Incidentally, I do not believe it would be suitable to select such a Committee. That would not remove the clash of media, which is my main reason for opposing this proposition.
The proposition underlying this debate, which has grown up over several years, is that nothing important can be done unless it is instantly televised. That is a most dangerous proposition, analogous with the other proposition which has grown up and which one does not have to be a member of Mrs. Whitehouse's organisation to deplore, that much of our private lives should now be shown on the screen. It is not fuddy-duddy or old-fashioned to deplore that development.
It is not good enough to attack the views of my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) simply because they are those of the Father of the House. It is not just because he is an old and established Member that he objects to this trend. Many far younger people outside take the same view. It is fallacious to think that everything should be instantly recorded.
I do not accept the view of the hon. Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan), who declared an interest in television and referred to the fourth channel, that the Coal Industry Bill debate, in which we both took part last week, would have been reported under such a selection system. I know what the principles of that selection would be. First, there would be the set Front Bench speeches, then the most dramatic items and then

those items which were rather odd. But the House of Commons as a workshop would never come over on television. The quiet arguments late in the evening among a number of hon. Members who had spent a lifetime in an industry or at a particular job, trying to persuade one another, would never be shown. It is wrong to say that we are debating a proposal to report Parliament as it is and as it works.
There is a wrong-headed proposition abroad that the House of Commons would be much better known and understood if it were televised. Linked with that is the equally fallacious proposition that Parliament's work would be better. That was the thread running through the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North.

Mr. Whitehead: No—that it would be better understood.

Mr. Mendelson: There are other ways of achieving that end and they have nothing to do with television. A proposal is to come up for discussion soon in one of the Select Committees—if Front Benchers want to improve our work, I commend it to them—about the urgent need to provide each hon. Member with a research assistant, a secretary and facilities to study the industry with which he is familiar in other parts of the country. That is the kind of thing which would make the legislature more effective in controlling the executive.
The introduction of television cameras has nothing whatever to do with improving the work of Parliament. That is hidden behind the proposition of those who say "Even if Parliament changes under the influence of television, so what? The work of Parliament would not be affected by that. Other measures are needed." There is confusion in thought here—throwing the two together in order to add a convenient argument.
My final point is that the House, when it makes this decision tonight, must indeed know all the reasons behind this. One cannot make a broadcast anywhere now without later being asked by one director or another of a television company "Why cannot you change your mind? We want to do it and we think that it is for everyone's best" What is in their minds in this matter is that they will


be able to add to their general programme one more item. That is all that they are concerned about. If they were concerned with education, they would say "We make the proposition of showing everything that goes on in Parliament and let those who want to see it do so; let the universities put it on for a whole day, or the schools for a couple of hours." No one makes that proposal. They do not say—[Interruption.] No one makes this proposal now. I carry with me the hon. Member for Howden, who knows a great deal about this subject. They say "It would be far too costly." Does anyone propose that the whole proceedings should be shown all day?

Sir P. Bryan: A general feed from here, a broadcast Hansard, would be available. Universities would be able to take as much or as little as they liked.

Mr. Mendelson: What I am saying is something quite different. No one is proposing that on a public channel, for the general public, the whole proceedings of Parliament should be shown all the time.

Sir P. Bryan: Do the public want that?

Mr. Mendelson: What the television companies are interested in is being able to show what they consider to be most dramatic and most entertaining. The House of Commons, in spite of the impatience of one of my hon. Friends, has to consider the proposition of whether it wants to hand over the selection and editing of what is broadcast—highly political jobs—to an outside body composed of men and women with their own biases, whereby the workshop that is Parliament would never be reported and where the spreading of the knowledge of Parliament would not be seriously advanced.
It is on that proposition that we are invitee to vote tonight.

6.2 p.m.

Mr. John Peyton: It might be for the general convenience of the House if I were to intervene now. Perhaps I could convey the welcome news that from the Opposition side of the House there will be only one Front Bench speaker in the debate.
The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson), who is a very agreeable speaker, excelled himself on this occa-

ssion. He attributed to both Front Benches—which was very nice of him indeed—an intention to improve Parliament. I am bound to say that I have never discerned such intention in either Front Bench myself, but it is very nice of the hon. Gentleman to have seen it and recognised it publicly. He will be held to that.
When the right hon. Gentleman started his speech, he complained that my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), who I now see in his seat, and his hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) were not present. The hon. Gentleman seemed greatly to resent that his audience should have been so reduced. But nevertheless, he shied away from the enthralling prospect of a very much wider television or radio audience which doubtless would hang upon his words. I am bound to say that shyness is not one of the defects which I have ever noticed in the hon. Gentleman, but he seemed very shy about this proposal about exposing himself to a large audience.

Mr. John Mendelson: Would the right hon. Gentleman care to rephrase that?

Mr. Peyton: I am certainly prepared to accept any rephrasing for which the hon. Gentleman asks.
I wish to make it quite clear that tonight I am not expressing any view on behalf of the Shadow Cabinet. I merely wish to refer to some of the arguments that have been adduced today in some very interesting speeches and perhaps indicate my own view as well on a subject which is very controversial and exceedingly important.
I start by saying that I think we all appreciate very much the way in which the Leader of the House launched the debate and the great trouble to which he has gone to set up the experiments and keep the House informed as to the issues. My right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton quite rightly expressed the view that the experiments would be decisive; that if we had the experiments, it would be very unlikely that we would ever turn back from them. For myself, I should like to add that I think that if we launch ourselves timidly into a radio experiment, we shall also be, within a very short time, involved in television as well. My right hon. Friend showed


himself to be an admiring critic of this House. He referred—I thought with more criticism than admiration—to some of the pointless partisan debates which we have in this Chamber—a remark which I completely endorse. He pointed out how little those debates do to exercise any control at all over the executive.
I remember many years ago making a speech from the back benches—I think on the Government side of the House—in which I described the House of Commons as having descended to the lowly status of the administration's Pekingese—permitted to snarl a bit and only now and again to have the odd bite, but never really seriously allowed to inconvenience the executive. That is one of the points, at least, that we must have in mind in deciding this issue as to whether the House of Commons could, perhaps, gather to itself a greater power and influence over an executive which sometimes—I am not making any remarks particularly about the present Government—become over-weaning, intolerant and a very bad listener indeed. I have been a member of two Governments and I am very conscious of the fact that, as the years go on, however much Governments may improve in some respects, their capability of listening diminishes at a terrifying pace.
My right hon. Friend gave a very permissible and quite understandable plug for that admirable institution the Public Accounts Committee, which he thought would, if televised, offer the most favourable view of Parliament from which constituents would be more likely to draw satisfaction than from any other view of our proceedings. I am bound to say that there is something in that view.
The right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), as the Father of the House, speaks with more experience of our affairs than does any other Member. But when he says, as he did today, that the public have always ridiculed the House of Commons but that, nevertheless, it has always had and continues to have the confidence of the public, I wonder whether he is really right. This is a matter which ought to be very much in our minds. I personally do not share the right hon. Gentleman's confidence to any very full extent. I believe that the public do not realise in these rather dangerous days what a bulwark Parliament is for personal

liberty. I am not at all sure that, if we were to proceed with this experiment, we might not do something to awaken or reawaken that awareness.
The right hon. Gentleman gave voice to an idea new to me, namely, that the side which scored the most points in a debate would win Divisions. That has never happened while I have been here. [Interruption.] We do not live in an ideal world. The only points I ever see counted at the end of the day are the heads in the Division Lobby. Every head counts. The terribly dud points which have been made in a debate are no handicap and do not prevent successive Governments, most surprisingly, from winning the argument on a count of heads at the end of the day.
I thought that the hon. Members for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) and for Derby, North went altogether too far. The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles actually advocated—he will correct me if I misunderstood him—the course of subjecting the public to the appalling ordeal of listening in full to the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer presenting the Budget.
I cannot remember how many Chancellors I have heard, but I cannot remember one Budget speech which I have enjoyed or been able to listen in its entirety. I therefore hope that the prospects of television and of broadcasting will not be altogether dimmed and shattered by any such appalling prospect as the hon. Gentleman held out.
The hon. Member for Derby, North—how dangerous are the advocates of these courses; they nearly always sink the project they wish to help—suggested that a debate in its entirety should be projected upon an unfortunate, unwarned, unresisting public.

Mr. Whitehead: I am prepared to add, as a corollary, not one in which the right hon. Gentleman took part.

Mr. Peyton: One always learns the same lesson whenever one gives way. Almost invariably the point which is raised is absolute puerile and silly. The hon. Gentleman just rammed that lesson home once again. I am much obliged to him. I should have been warned.
The hon. Gentleman referred—this is a point which worries some people—to the


arrogance of the broadcasting establishment. He never dealt with the point adequately. It is something which worries people greatly, not because they are particularly sensitive, as was the hon. Member for Penistone, about the fact that the British public were deprived on one occasion of the great privilege of hearing his explanation of the significance of a parliamentary recess.
I do not think that the anxiety felt here is a personal one. Every hon. Member of Parliament ought to be ready to run the risk of appearing from time to time to be idiotic and silly; and indeed we do. What is important is that the House of Commons should be treated with reverence and respect and should not be made just the plaything of those who are peddling an entertainment.

Mr. John Mendelson: Where in the entire text of my speech does the right hon. Gentleman discover, except in his own imagination, that I said anything about the impression an individual Member might give? I spent practically all my time emphasising that I was speaking of the House of Commons as a workshop. How does the right hon. Gentleman come to make this allegation, which is no better in quality than the intervention made by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead)?

Mr. Peyton: The hon. Gentleman commented at some length upon the unpleasing experience he had had at the hands of the BBC.

Mr. John Mendelson: No, no, no.

Mr. Peyton: The hon. Gentleman said he had had an unpleasing experience at the hands of the BBC to which he had made a generous offer to appear and to explain the significance of a parliamentary recess and remove an unjust slur which had been cast upon the House.

Mr. John Mendelson: That is right—the House.

Mr. Peyton: I assure the hon. Gentleman through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the memory of his speech is fresh in our minds. Nothing, however, would be more foolish of me than to tempt the hon. Gentleman into a repetition of it now.
The hon. Member for Derby, North, who I understand to be friendly to the proposals for this experiment, did more to create unease in my mind than he did to abate it. One must attribute it to the fact that he has, as he himself said, been suffering from chickenpox. I am glad that he has recovered at any rate to this extent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan) commented—I thought rightly—upon the willingness of right hon. and hon. Members to rush off to all manner of inconvenient places to have an opportunity of appearing on the television screen although they are reluctant and coy about being seen in what might be described as their natural habitat.

Mr. John Mendelson: Nonsense.

Mr. Peyton: The hon. Member for Penistone is an expert, in that his speeches made whilst he is on his feet are protracted affairs and continuous. His interruptions while seated are less continuous, it is true, but nevertheless can be relied upon to cover a much longer period of time without ever being constructive.
I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Howden was right in saying that if we agree to Parliament being televised and broadcast it is something which will awaken a great deal of widespread interest.
I believe that over many years we have made very heavy weather of the issue. We have had motions, debates, reports, questions and very coy and modest experiments, but we have not yet got anywhere near a decision. It is perhaps time that we made one. Nobody could accuse us of being unduly precipitate if tonight by any chance the House were to agree to a limited experiment.
Other countries have endured and even enjoyed the spectacle of having their legislatures televised or broadcast. Other Parliaments have come through the ordeal more or less unscathed. It could be that this one would manage it if we gave ourselves the chance.
For a long time I was opposed to the televising or broadcasting of our proceedings. As time has gone on, I have rather slowly but with some conviction now come to feel that we would be


wrong not to accept this modest experiment.
There are six points which the House will need to discuss and have in mind. How will it affect the House of Commons? What will be the effect upon individual Members? How will it affect the public? Can we make arrangements to see that it is fair? Are the media able to subject themselves to an adequate discipline? Will in the intrusion of cameras, lights and all the rest of it be tolerable?
Let me deal briefly with some of those issues. The question that we have to ask is whether television or broadcasting enhances or diminishes the public esteem in which the House of Commons is held. If we say "No" to this experiment, might not people conclude that so nervous an institution is lacking in the robustness which is needed in its task? I do not believe that it would radically change the character of so old and deep-rooted an institution as this. Some may even see lurking advantages. I am sure that we shall all have different views about this. Some of us will even dare to hope that it may have singularly beneficial effects upon some of our colleagues, though not necessarily upon ourselves, of course.
I have heard some hon. Members frequently expressing concern for the public, yet they have no hesitation in participating in party political broadcasts which are usually excruciatingly dull. I can say this with some confidence, as I have never yet taken part in one myself. I do not believe that we in this place would behave so differently either as an institution or as individuals. I do not believe that it would make a crucial difference to the speeches we make. Therefore, I cannot be swayed by that argument.
We have to ask ourselves a fairly galling question: would the public find us interesting? As I have indicated before, there is no reason why they need be subjected to the excruciating burden of some of our proceedings. But I believe that it would be wrong for us to continue to make it more difficult for the public to take an interest in our proceedings by interposing an unnecessary and what seems to me an increasingly unjustifiable barrier.
The question of fairness is a favourite one. I think it was Mr. Forman, the Chairman of Granada, who said that there are always some tender souls who will see bias in every electronic hiccough. But I do not think that the issue of fairness, between parties or between individual Members or between back benchers and Front Benchers, would be any more difficult if we allowed proceedings here to be televised or broadcast than they are now when these important matters have to be handled exclusively by the media, because in the new circumstances it would be the House of Commons which would be in charge.
I should like to make one comment upon the views of the media which I think can be and are so often misjudged by those who perhaps are the worst advertisements for the media. I should like to be fair and mention a discussion I had with Sir Charles Curran, who showed himself very understanding of the difficulties and nervousness of the House of Commons. He wrote me a letter from which I should like to make one brief quotation. He said:
Broadcasting from Parliament would increase the impact of news from the floor of the House. An essential element would be a television 'Today in Parliament', using the pictures from the Chamber. We recognise, however, that much parliamentary work is done elsewhere, and our political staff would have more time to devote to reporting this in addition to the debates. We believe that with the centre of political broadcasting shifted to Westminster, 'studio politics' would play a smaller role. In fact, where Parliament is now represented on the air substantially by individual politicians, it would in future be present in its own right. Our position is that we stand ready to serve the wishes of the Commons.
I think it is fair to say that that expression of intention leaves very little to be desired, and I welcome it.
The last point to which I wish to refer is the question of intrusion—the intrusion of the cameras and the lights, and the mere fact that the process is being carried on. These are, of course, important issues, but I do not believe they should frighten us off. On balance, I believe it would be wise and right for us to allow this experiment, because without it I believe that there would be an increasingly large gap between the public and ourselves.
I stress that these are the views of myself and not of my colleagues, but


nevertheless views which I hope the House will consider.

6.26 p.m.

Mr. Raymond Fletcher: It is my intention to make a serious speech in so far as I find that possible. Having spent a recent week as a guest television critic of that well known journal the Listener, and having been expected by its editor to look at political programmes, I found myself in the uncomfortable position of having to stop watching those programmes one day after I started. Therefore, the remainder of my remarks were confined to entertainment programmes, school programmes, and those odd afternoon little things directed towards housewives which hon. Members of this House very rarely see.
That makes my first point for me in an oblique way. The traditional methods of transmitting politics to our constituents have broken down completely. Nobody except party agents watches party political broadcasts. Nobody except a tiny minority of the population pays any attention to those three-minute studio gladiatorial contests which take place in television studios on Clause 22(c) of the Public Conveniences (No. 2) Bill.
Most of those who are regularly invited by their friends, the television producers, to appear regularly on television are rapidly becoming the most colossal bores to be seen on the television screen, apart from some of those imported televisual detectives. Consequently, the usual and accepted methods of transmitting what is happening in this Chamber, in the world of politics, to the people outside have broken down. There is a necessity at least to try something new, not because it is new but because what is now being used is obviously not serving the function.
My second point concerns the observations of my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), whose experience and wisdom must not be discounted. Generally speaking, I accept his rather traditionalist view of what this House is and what it is all about. Where I dissent from him is in his analysis of the social context in which this debate is taking place. It may be absolutely true that there is as much respect for the House of Commons among the population in 1975 as there was, say, in 1913

or 1923 or 1933. That may well be true. But there is a different kind of interest, and it is marked by a lack of balance which is seeping through all democracies.
There is certainly a heightened set of expectations about politicians and the political apparatus, but there is also a lower comprehension of what that apparatus and those politicians can actually deliver. Every right hon. and hon. Member who has ever received a deputation at this House knows quite well to what I am referring. Members of those deputations—some elegantly, some rather angrily and most that I meet extremely offensively—imagine that we have the power to overturn court decisions and that we can release people from prison just like that. They imagine that we can instruct the Prime Minister to go and jump in the river and that he will immediately do so. They believe that we have tremendous powers, that we can right wrongs and tear up legislation, and that we can do this on our own.
One of the reasons for widening public interest in Parliament and public awareness of Parliament is not to demonstrate what splendid actors we could have been if Cecil B. de Mille had noticed us in our younger days but to demonstrate the limitations of Parliament and how difficult it is to put any kind of reform through this House. I am not criticising the House, because the difficulty of putting changes through is one of the bastions of our freedom, both inside and outside the House.
When I speak of the public outside I do not delude myself that there are 22 million people all agog to listen to the hon. Member for Ilkeston performing. I doubt very much whether there are 23 people in Ilkeston who would be interested in me because, like sensible Derbyshire people, they have other things to do with their time. I do not assume that there is a vast audience of between 22 million and 23 million waiting to hang on every word that is spoken here.
The political nation consists of about 10 per cent. of the total population. If this experiment results in the introduction of cameras into the House and if, during the course of the next two Parliaments, we can expand that political nation to 11 per cent. of the population, we shall have


achieved the equivalent of a tremendous revolution. Consequently, I shall not indulge in the camp phrase that we have to open ourselves up because there is a vast audience outside interested in what we are doing. Those outside who are interested in what we are doing should see us doing it in the workshop instead of in the contrived conditions of a television studio, bearing in mind all the difficulties that can arise and which were freely discussed by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead), who escapes being my Member of Parliament by only a matter of yards.
Reference has been made to experience in other countries. I should like to feed in some experience which is admittedly secondhand but which is none the less valuable. Incidentally, those of us who attend the Council of Europe and Western European Union are quite accustomed to cameras. They do not disturb us in the slightest. To anticipate the snarls from my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson), I should say that I am aware that the construction of those chambers is vastly different from this one.
I wish to refer to one of the most remarkably successful experiments in the history of Europe, namely, the creation and the activation of Parliamentary democracy in West Germany. This is one of the great success stories of our time, something that those of us who saw Germany in 1945 as a heap of rubble could not possibly have foreseen.
It is undoubtedly true that the television camera has played its rôle in the revival and the buttressing of democracy in Germany. As my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Derby, North well knows, it was the television camera alone which killed off the neo-Nazi movement, led by Adolf von Thadden, which we were so worried about a few years ago. Not one word of commentary was needed in those programmes. It needed only a programme about the thugs who were active in controlling the audiences to kill that movement and to kill that pseudo-Feuhrer for ever.
The proceedings of the Bundestag are broadcast and are used by producers to feed into the kind of programmes we have on our television screens like Panorama and World in Action. I am well acquainted with the Bundestag, and

there is no case where the freedom to use the camera to illustrate political programmes has been abused. On the contrary, most observers will testify that it has considerably helped the growth of German democracy as a system in the minds of German people.

Mr. Whitehead: My hon. Friend can go further and say that there is no Western European Parliament from which cameras have been withdrawn once they have been allowed.

Mr. Fletcher: That is correct. It underlines the point I make.
It was suggested that some of the great set-piece debates might be broadcast in their entirety. The Budget speech was referred to. There are other great occasions in Parliament apart from the Budget debate. Again I refer to German experience. When the vote of no confidence was first tabled against Bundeskanzler Willie Brandt and when it appeared that that Government was about to fall, the whole of Germany was brought into those proceedings, which were broadcast on the radio and carried on the television networks. I was there when this happened and I was privileged to experience a whole nation participating, in a strange sense, in the decision. This is not new to us in Great Britain. It is in our bloodstream. To experience that in Germany, in view of that country's tragic history, is no possible indictment of the use of television cameras inside a parliamentary assembly.
It has been suggested that if cameras are brought into this Chamber the parliamentary buffoon will dominate the proceedings and public consciousness. This is not true and it has not been shown to be true in German experience. Those hon. Members who tend to dominate the political programmes which are illustrated by recordings from Bundestag proceedings are not the flowery orators, the comic performers or the buffoons. They are those members of the Bundestag who know what they are talking about. However badly they may deliver their speeches and however inadequate they may be as orators, if they know what they are talking about, and if what they talk about finds an echo in the experience of their audience, they become the stars of that programme.
As a traditionalist, and with some reluctance, I intend to support the motions because I firmly believe, contrary to the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone, that by bringing the cameras in we will remove control from the television producers. I put it rather better in what I wrote, and although it is an unfortunate practice I shall quote what I said in the Listener of 13th February:
What is now slowly sinking in"—
this is based on my own sort of Gallup poll system—
is that admitting the cameras into Parliament is actually the best of all possible ways of clipping the power of broadcasting executives to make stars of their old college chums. For the most compelling figures on television, whether the subject be cooking or the situation in Columbia, are those who know what they are talking about. Their delivery may be inelegant, their faces a lighting man's despair and their views enough to drive a director away from drink. But they command attention.
I forecast in the same article that when the cameras arrived here, instead of having the all-star cast of "Panorama" and "World in Action" and those who have done the circuits interminably, we should find emerging a new kind of broadcasting star. I am sorry to say that in my article I used the term "polit-broadcasting star". I mean people who have never been invited to appear on television at all, the sort of people who know perhaps one subject but know it damned well but who have to demonstrate their knowledge in detail in Committee rather than on the Floor of the House.
Incidentally, it is central to my argument that it is no use bringing the cameras in here unless they go into Committee Rooms as well.
I think of those hon. Members who know an industry, as so many of my hon. Friends with trade unions connections do—I mention them because I know them best of all—Members who are not regarded as star turns either in this Chamber or among the ranks of television producers, Members who are never invited out to lunch by producers and who almost never appear on programmes. It is these hon. Members, speaking from experience and talking of what they know, who will become the new tele-

vision stars of the future, in so far as that term can be used.
The proposed experiments are fraught with difficulty. In my view, the time has now arrived for us to take a little courage in our hands and embark upon them.

6.42 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I think that the hon. Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Fletcher) is mistaken in believing that a new kind of television star will arise from the proposed change, but, in any case, I hope that the House will consider this matter upon some rather broader and better principle than that of animosity against those of its Members who appear frequently on television, on the one hand, or the argument advanced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), on the other, that, after so many debates and attempts the change is inevitable and we had better get on with it.
The proposal which we are discussing is serious, and fraught with consequences for our proceedings, and we ought to take it very seriously, though not altogether dogmatically, for I see the force of the arguments in favour of the motions just as I see the force of those against them, and none of us can be entirely certain. The Leader of the House got it right, I think, when he said that we had to balance a greater degree of communication with the public against the change which would undoubtedly occur in the character of our own proceedings. If one is to weigh that balance properly, one must ask oneself what is the change which would occur in the character of our proceedings.
The first thing to be affected, I believe, would be what I call the intimacy of our proceedings. When this Chamber was destroyed during the last war and there was discussion as to how it should be replaced, and by what sort of Chamber, the overwhelming feeling then—rightly, most of us think—was that its replacement should be this small Chamber, of the same size as before, with room for about half of its Members, in order that our debates should be of the intimate and conversational character traditional in the House. In other legislatures—they have been referred to already by the hon.


Member for Ilkeston and others—on the whole speaking is of a declamatory kind, and only in the Parliaments of the Anglo-Saxon peoples has the Westminster tradition of informal and conversational debate prevailed. We must take that into account when we make comparisons.
The other noticeable effect, I believe, would be a difference, in our proceedings and on television, in the estimation of time. Anyone who knows that medium—I suppose that we all do in some degree—realises that one minute is a long time on television, and a pause or silence of even five seconds seems almost like a technical defect. This is where I see another consequence. An argument or line of thought may take ten minutes to deploy and be impossible to summarise in less. The Member advancing it is, let us say, a competent speaker and needs 10 minutes to establish the proportions of the components of his argument. All such things must inevitably be excluded from an edited television programme of Parliament.
The pace of our proceedings in this Chamber is slow and deliberate as becomes a deliberative assembly. It is not the fast and rather febrile tempo of a medium of entertainment. We have our Question Time, and we have the gladiatorial exchanges at 3·30, but they are not characteristic of the main business of the House. That also should be taken into account.
Comparisons have been made between comments today and comments made in the past about the reporting of the House in the Press or in the Official Report. We should have clear in our minds that what we are talking about here is a question of degree. At one end of the scale there is the completely secret debate and, I suppose, the secret vote. If one is thinking of control over the executive, the maximum control over the executive is obtained by an assembly whose proceedings are secret and the votes of whose members are secret. Any Government would be very worried if it had to operate in such as assembly.
I remember, and some others present may remember, an occasion when Mr. George Wigg, now Lord Wigg, spied strangers early in a debate. The Chair put the Question at once, as was his duty, "That strangers do withdraw". Mr.

Wigg shouted "Aye", the rest of the House was so stunned that no one shouted "No", and strangers were ordered to withdraw. That applied not merely to the public gallery but to the Press and to Hansard, and the consequence was that not a word spoken during, the rest of that day could have any purpose other than influencing the business of the House. The business passed swiftly. There were no speeches made for the local Press. The only purpose of uttering a word was to influence one's fellow Members in the conduct of the business. That is one extreme.
The other extreme is the maximum of immediate and direct public exposure. As far as I have seen it, there is an inverse relation in this place between the degree of control over the executive and the degree of publicity. The greatest control over legislation or the executive is exerted in a Select Committee where what a member says is not reported in Hansard, where, on the whole, the Press is not present, and where the 15 members of the Committee act as 15 individuals and vote sometimes one way and sometimes another. It is sometimes a very useful expedient to send a Bill to a Select Committee because the work done on it there is totally different from what is done in a Standing Committee. The Standing Committee, with its comparative insulation from publicity, is also much bolder in modifying legislation.
Then we all know that to some extent the House is a parade of political attitudes. The speech which is made for party or local reasons has already cut down very seriously the area of true debate, though not yet to the point of destroying it.
I venture to suggest, therefore, that the question we must ask is whether this further and very great extension of publicity, the consciousness that one's words may be listened to, one's speech heard and oneself seen, by millions of people, will not reduce very much further the area of significant debate, in the sense of a persuading debate, that goes on. I believe it is likely to have that effect.
I am not worried about the parliamentary buffoon or even the deliberate sensation seeker. I am more concerned about the general tenor of the debate


where hon. Members might think it preferable to make set speeches rather than off-the-cuff speeches. After all, when an hon. Member makes a speech it is not a balanced representation of his opinion on the subject. It is a speech inside a debate. It takes account of what has been said already and it takes account of the mood of the House, of the temperature of the discussion. So it should. That is what we are here for. Yet it could be misleading and unfair if at 9 o'clock in an edited version of proceedings in Parliament a paragraph were taken out of an hon. Member's speech and perhaps represented as his balanced general view on the subject. I am not so much concerned about damage or injustice to the hon. Member as the effect on the proceedings of Parliament of the consciousness that this might happen.
There are, perhaps, lesser things to be accounted. The language of debate is more elevated and more literary than that which is usual on television programmes. I would like to think that it would remain so and that the language in which our speeches are delivered would be at a standard no lower than that in the past. I wonder whether that would survive exposure on media which are basically, and must be basically, media of entertainment. I wonder whether there would not be a very strong influence upon hon. Members always to speak in terms which will be instantly apprehended by a mass audience. It would be very sad if that were so.
To sum up my attitude, it is that, basically, this House is here to do a job of work and so are its committees. Television and broadcasting exist primarily to entertain the public. They seek also to inform and educate the public, but there is an iron discipline on all their programmes whatever their purpose. It is that they must hold the attention of most of their viewers all the time and to do that they must be very fast, they must be piquant and they must be light. I do not want to see the proceedings of Parliament fall into that category.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) for making a shorter speech. The first four speeches of the debate averaged 11 minutes and the next five averaged 21 minutes. I

hope that we may get back to the earlier average.

6.55 p.m.

Mr. J. M. Craigen: Most of the speeches so far have concentrated on the televising of Parliament, and I do not think they have changed my view that it would be a mistake to televise our proceedings. My views on the broadcasting proposal are, however, a little more flexible.
When I first became a Member of Parliament I probably thought that it was desirable to televise Parliament. Having spent 12 months as a Member, and having reflected a little more seriously about the power of the media in our society in recent years, I am now firmly opposed to the proposal. This complete change of mind has arisen because while Parliament is accountable to the electorate the greatest estate in the realm—the media—seems to be accountable to no one. Parliament has some negative control over the media. We control the Independent Broadcasting Authority on such things as commercial advertising rates and we have some control over the BBC on matters like the licence fee.
My right hon. Friend the Lord President asked us to consider whether we would better serve democracy by televising our proceedings. If Parliament is reported less now than it once was I believe the reason is that it is no longer on the same wavelength as the problems which confront the average citizen. If Parliament is ceasing to be the centre of attention it is possibly because Government Departments, the corridors of power, have become much more important places. However, I do not class myself with the traditionalists or with those who seek a certain exclusiveness for the House. There is a great and urgent need for reform of our parliamentary procedures and for making Parliament a more meaningful place.
By televising Parliament we run the risk of being dictated to by the cathode ray tube. One criticism of back benchers is that they are nothing more than Lobby fodder. By televising the proceedings we might become nothing more than camera fodder, and that is not a particularly attractive situation. Spectators from the public gallery have sometimes remarked to me that this House is the best shown


in town. However, after having been put through a television interpretation it might well be reduced to a second-rate Palladium.
We should concentrate a little more on the second question that my right hon. Friend the Lord President posed to us, namely, would Parliament be more effective in its work if it were to televise its proceedings? The media have gained an increasing power to shape events in this country. We are becoming perilously near having the media actually create history, putting words into people's mouths and more or less forcing situations to arise. That is a very dangerous position for any society to get into. Parliament ought to be getting down to the serious problems confronting our society in terms of industry, economics and social affairs. The debate has been more about the power and influence of the media than the question of whether we should televise the proceedings in the Chamber.
One of the serious implications of the power of the media is that it has robbed the people of their ability to respond. I remember a striking incident when I was on holiday in the Isle of Man at the time of the Summerland fire. I happened to be on the beach when the fire broke out. I remember hearing some people next to me say "Let's go into the hotel to see if it is on the television". That highlights the fact that some people must see a thing on television before they think they are seeing the real thing.
I am all for open government, but televising Parliament, other than, perhaps, the more formal events such as the Queen's Speech or the Budget speech, would make it more difficult to get considered government, to have sensible debates. I do not feel that the same ogstacles lie in the way of broadcasting the proceedings of the House, but I would definitely be opposed to the intrusion of the cameras into the proceedings with all the inherent dangers that that would impose not only on Parliament but on democracy.

7.2 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I understand why the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) expressed a certain hesitancy about televising the House. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House

have expressed similar hesitancy, not only today but over many years. I have been as guilty as anyone of adopting a somewhat ambivalent approach to the idea of broadcasting the proceedings of Parliament.
I should declare an interest in this matter. I am a member of the General Advisory Council of the Independent Broadcasting Authority. I once voted for an experiment, and I once abstained, when the motion was debated in 1966 and was lost by one vote. My having experience of both worlds may account for my comparative lack of enthusiasm for either side of the argument. If the proponents of televising our proceedings have appeared to exaggerate the value of television to this House, the defenders of the status quo on the previous occasion, as today, have seemed to be too pessimistic about its effects. Be that as it may, as time has gone by I have become convinced that the House should be courageous tonight and take the plunge. I shall give my reasons later.
First, I should like to deal very briefly with some of the fears that have been expressed, especially about televising the House, which I recognise cause genuine anxiety to some hon. Members. We all know—this is at the back of our fear—that television does something more than merely record events. It can shape them as well. I do not know whether it will encourage some hon. Members to play to the gallery. Certainly over the years we have evolved to a remarkable degree an unself-conscious attitude to both the Strangers' Gallery and the Press Gallery But if the temptation to play to the cameras, to become "actors", becomes too much for us, we should not be powerless. Mr. Speaker will decide who appears on some of the programmes.
If that is not enough, I assume that if we object to the complete transmission of our programmes, because we feel that it is being abused by those hon. Members who wish to abuse it, we shall devise in our wisdom a fair and liberal editing board. I do not agree with the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), who said that those responsible for broadcasting an edited version would emphasise the sensational. I do not agree either with the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr.


Mendelson), whose words were echoed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) that basically the people who would have a say in what was broadcast would be people whose minds and hearts were deeply rooted in a purely theatrical, dramatic tradition, interested only in putting on a show. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Penistone that television must rivet people to their seats or be out of business. If that has been its objective over the past few years, it has made a pretty poor fist at it with some programmes. That is to mistake the nature of television.
As anyone who has worked in television knows, there is no such thing as a television audience. There is an audience for light entertainment, an audience for the arts and an audience for light, fast-moving current affairs programmes which inject a degree of superficiality into the way in which they deal with matters. There is also a considerable market, if that is the right word, for heavy, sometimes ponderous, serious current affairs programmes which deal with matters in a thoroughly responsible manner.
Over the years we have developed men and women of tremendous sensitivity and skill who know about our political constitution and who have as much respect for this place as we do. With that fund of knowledge and that expertise behind us, it should be possible for us to lay the ground rules to ensure that the House is not abused should it agree to the experiment.
There are those who are concerned that broadcasting, especially television, will discount the qualities which we look for in parliamentarians and put a premium on the technical ability of some hon. Members with prior experience to come across on television. But will it really do so? The skills and talents required of a television interviewer-reporter include an ability to link film and other visual aids with the spoken word and to talk naturally and directly to a camera. They include the skill and ability, which we sometimes portray here, to listen to what someone else is saying, but to do so while being concerned with the clock and with getting off one subject and on to another, and to do it all calmly and in a relaxed, confident and competent

manner while being prepared for the whole programme to come grinding to a halt. That has been partly my experience.
Speaking here demands few of the skills I have described. But even if it did, not many hon. Members would know, if our programmes were edited, whether our remarks would be transmitted anyway. I believe that we should find, as parliamentarians have found in other legislatures which have allowed broadcasting facilities over many years, not to mention our party conferences, that these presentational fears are ill founded. I suspect that we shall continue to be influenced primarily by the shape of the Chamber and by its debating traditions.
The fear mentioned by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield, raised by the prospect of broadcasting our proceedings which has always struck me as being the most worrying, is the one which is most difficult to define—that is, the effect it will have on the intimacy of this place. The fear is that in some curious way the cameras will rob this House of its informality and intimacy and that the more human aspects of the House which have given it its colour and personality will disappear. The fear is not that if this happens it will encourage more theatrical behaviour but that it will induce a dull uniformity.
One of the nicest things about the House of Commons is that when we speak we often speak to one another, with the nation acting as a kind of eavesdropper. The methods of behaviour we have adopted, rough and idiosyncratic though they may be at times, are the ways and means we have evolved of rubbing along together. We know that what is seen and heard in the Strangers' Gallery is not always quite what it seems and that the Press, which knows about these things in its interpretation of our proceedings, acts as a valuable filter. Television could destroy all that. Lacking the filter of the Press we might, for fear of being misunderstood by the mass unseen audience, abandon our unique informality.
On the other hand, it is only fair to recall that there are those outside who have worked in the medium of television and who, if given the responsibility to help to transmit our proceedings so that they are introduced into news bulletins and current affairs programmes, could also


display—indeed, have already displayed—sensitivity about the manner in which we conduct our affairs. But we shall not know the answer to this question unless they are given the responsibility.
So much for the fears. There is always a price to pay, and some hon. Members think that that price is too high. Why change? The main reason for change stems from the simple fact that television has altered the focal point of the nation's interest. Parliament, according to its critics, has become more remote in recent years and is less relevant. Whether our influence in reality has waned, our prestige certainly has. Our debates are now inadequately covered by the Press. I make no complaint, because the Press recognises that times have changed too and that while the public increasingly depend upon television for their news, comment and insight into the world in which they live, our form of communication with the public remains substantially the same. This surely cannot be right.
I remember that when I was first in broadcasting we were subject to the 14-day rule. Until 1955 the BBC, by agreement with the political parties, had refrained from anticipating parliamentary statements or discussions of matters during the fortnight before they were due to be debated in Parliament. I quote from the Pilkington Report on Broadcasting in 1960 which referred to the practice of not anticipating parliamentary statements or discussions:
In 1955 the BBC proposed to abandon this practice. The Postmaster General then required both the BBC and the ITA to adhere to it. Later, the direction was suspended: initially, for a six-months' experimental period; and then indefinitely, on the understanding that neither the BBC nor independent television would so act as to derogate from the primacy of Parliament as a forum for debating the affairs of the nation.
That has now gone by the board.

Mr. John Page: Does not my hon. Friend think that perhaps because that rule went the primacy of Parliament also was derogated from? Does he not think that a greater exposure of figures in public life has produced a greater disrespect rather than the reverse? Does not familiarity breed contempt?

Mr. Johnson Smith: I do not think familiarity breeds contempt, but the issues discussed on television are bound to open

up another area of consultation and public debate. If my hon. Friend's argument is that we should narrow the area of debate in geographical terms, then the Press would be out tomorrow because it conducts debates of its own and takes attitudes in its editorial columns which are often contrary to what goes on in this Chamber. Before television came on the scene, newspapers would write editorials and conduct debates. It seems to me that many of the arguments against televising or broadcasting our proceedings point away from our democracy and away from the trend of a more educated democracy which demands a knowledge of what is happening.
I believe that broadcasting could help to redress the balance and could achieve two objectives. It could focus public attention on the way in which we conduct the nation's business. Those who believe, as I do, that we can conduct it with greater efficiency will need public support for reform. We shall not get research secretaries, to take up the argument put by the hon. Member for Penistone, or obtain many of the features which we associate with the modern conduct of parliamentary business unless we have a public who are more aware and who have a greater knowledge of how Parliament works.
Secondly, broadcasting could focus attention on the valuable work that is done here—work of which the public are largely unaware. If we accept, as many hon. Members do, that there is a growing demand among the electorate to be consulted and to know what is being done in their name, a Parliament which insulates itself has only itself to blame if it does not recognise that television can play a constructive and serious rôle in bridging the gap between Parliament and the electorate. Those of us who have watched the activities of the American television companies and who saw what happened in the inquiries into the Watergate affair must accept that in the United States television made a massive contribution to the American public's understanding not only of the scandal but of the institutions of the United States.
Therefore, in my view broadcasting our proceedings can do the same for us by widening and deepening the people's knowledge of their Parliament and of


the problems we face. For these reasons I hope that the House will overcome caution and hesitancy tonight and approve the two Government motions.

7.18 p.m.

Mr. Colin Jackson: I hope that the House will follow the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Fletcher) and make up its mind once and for all on this question. It is 11 years since the hon. Member for Ilford, North, then Mr. Iremonger, introduced a motion on this subject.
Reference has been made to the 1966 debate on experimental television which we lost by one vote. On that occasion because of fog an hon. Member who was to have flown to Scotland went by train and that motion was lost. It is in such ways that these matters are sometimes decided.
We have been told that if we agree to this experimental period it will be a once-and-for-all decision. One might equally say that if we vote against the motion it will be thrown out once and for all. Surely a period of 20 years is a long period for the House to make up its mind, and if hon. Members get nervous about the matter they have the choice to go backwards rather than forwards.
I believe that we should go ahead with this experiment. This House is 900 years old and surely it can try out a new experiment. It will last for only a relatively short period. We can look at the experiment to see how it turns out. My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead), who is a television expert, said that the television experiment may turn out to be a failure. If that happens, let us be done with it—but let us not have this wavering backwards and forwards year in and year out. I feel that a period of three weeks for experimentation is too short. I can recall previous debates on this subject when we discussed looking at ourselves on closed circuit television before launching ourselves on the public. As far as I can gather, in the experimentation period there would be not only closed circuit television but a period of Questions and at 10.30 at night there would be a summary of events. I repeat that a period of three weeks is too short to enable hon. Members to come to a

final conclusion for or against televising the House.
I shall try to follow Mr. Speaker's injunction to be brief. It is said that if we allow television into the House it will dominate performances here and that it is television which will inform the world outside about how we behave and conduct ourselves. I think it was once said in the 1966 debate that for most hon. Members the Floor of the House comes at the top of the Speaker's wig and that anyone who tried to play to the Gallery would look an extraordinarily stupid person.
In terms of getting the correct impression of what is going on in the House, it would be wise for us to contrast the Press reports and the television reports. All of us will have read about "Uproar in the House"or"Riot on the back benches". If we could check that sort of thing with a television summary of the proceedings we could judge the truth of such descriptions. Most hon. Members will agree that the Lobby correspondents of BBC 1 and 2 and ITV have behaved in a responsible fashion. To imagine that they would go off in some kind of David Frost antic would be ludicrous. If they did so they would be out on their necks.
If we read comments about world affairs such as floods, riots or demonstrations and such events are covered on television we have a double check. Far from becoming mesmerised by television and far from creating inadequacy, we should zero in on greater adequacy if we had television reporting as well as newspaper reporting.
Reference has been made to television outside the United Kingdom. We have heard about television in Germany and of that dramatic moment when Willy Brandt's political career was in balance. I have watched a number of political reports on television of the United States Congress. Joseph McCarthy was killed off on the television by Ed Murrow and Senator Flanders, from Vermont, an old conservative. McCarthy on television bored the country to death. On the other hand, in the television reporting of Watergate we were able to get a measurement of the people concerned in the event. We were able to get an impression not only of the people who were giving evidence but of those who were accused and of those who were conducting the evidence.
Our Committee proceedings could be an impressive version of how this place behaves. Such television would clear away like the plague some of our sillier demonstrators. I was told when I came here that I should try to specialise and speak only on the subjects that I had studied. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ilkeston that they are the people who would be picked up by the television cameras. The cameras would not focus on the Members who are jack-of-all-trades and perhaps masters of none.
We have moved around the world in considering the use of vision in reporting our activities. The United Nations Security Council debates are extremely informative—they are not always encouraging—on how the world's councils are conducted. I am confident that the House would be capable of a similar achievement.
One aspect of the televising of the proceedings of the House that has not yet been fully developed is its possible part in our social history. On television we see our industrial behaviour, our party political behaviour outside the House and our schools, but this place, which is supposed to be one of our most valuable institutions for the preservation of democracy, is shrouded and kept away from the view of the public. Every day we are missing history that could be stored away in film cans and put away for future reporting—for example, "The Rise and Fall of Margaret Thatcher" or "The End of Harold Wilson". We are missing that sort of view and performance.
All I am saying is that we should make up our minds and try. We would then know whether it was worth while. If it was not, those who are now against it would be justified and those who now believe that it is worth a chance would have been able to conduct the experiment. It is my view that we should vote for the motions before us.

7.25 p.m.

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: The hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Jackson) seems to be illustrating the dilemma which has been overhanging the whole of the debate. He suggests that we should take a great experiment and that three weeks is not sufficient in which to conduct it. In almost the same breath he goes on to speak

about various countries where such experiments have continued for some time and which have gone on quite happily. I imagine—

Mr. Colin Jackson: Perhaps that is not a correct interpretation. I was saying that in Germany, for example, it is plain that the experiment has been a success and that televising has taken over.

Mr. Irvine: That is precisely what I was about to say. The hon. Gentleman gave examples of countries in which like experiments have been a success and where the system is working. He said that he would be in the Lobby tonight to vote that we should have an experiment here. I shall go into the opposite Lobby for nearly the same reasoning as that which the hon. Gentleman has adopted.
I shall give the House three examples of countries in which I have had some experience over the past 15 or more years. That has not been continuous experience but experience which I have gained from visiting the countries concerned from time to time and from watching the way in which their experiments have been working.
Before I describe my examples I must say to the House that I believe that the problem which we should be posing is not whether we should have an experiment but what the price will be for the House if we have one and we find that it works. I was hoping, when the Lord President put forward his propositions, that he might give us some indication of what he thought would happen if the experiment were a success and what adjustments we would have to make to our procedure to meet with the requirements of either medium.
The first example to which I draw the attention of the House is Denmark. The chamber in Denmark has been wired for television and sound for many years. It began its experiments in the early 1930s. At the end of the day the people in Denmark have found the televising of the activities of its chamber deadly dull. It is not regarded as offering anything which is of any benefit at all. It is only on rare occasions that pieces of television film are used. It is only on two or three occasions a year that the facilities for radio broadcasting are used in Denmark. That is a country which has been


operating a sound system for 30 years or more. It has been operating one or both of the mediums which it is suggested we should consider. The first thing that we may find is that all the benefits which some hon. Members have been asking us to believe would flow from a successful experiment may not turn out to be matters that we require.
New Zealand is my second example. In 1936 the New Zealand authorities decided that they would have radio in their House. New Zealand has a House of only 80 members. The exact parallel is, perhaps, not easy to draw with a House of approximately 630 Members. New Zealand has had continuous broadcasting—that may or may not be what is being proposed here, but that is what these authorities decided that they wanted—for the past 30 years or so. What has been the effect of that? First, the New Zealand question time, as we know Question Time here, is no longer possible. In New Zealand a member has to get up and say who he is and where he comes from and then read out his question. The New Zealand system provides only half an hour for questions. I need not remind the House of the influence that that would have on our procedure.
The second thing that happened in New Zealand was that it was found that the peak listening period occurred at about 7 o'clock in the evening. Instead of having a Minister making his speech at the beginning of the debate and another Minister winding up at the end, the Ministers' speeches are crammed into the 7 o'clock period. The result is that there is no beginning to the debate and no end either. The statements which are made here at 3.30 in the afternoon tend to be made at 7 o'clock in New Zealand because Ministers regard that as the most important moment to reach the nation.
Another feature of the situation in New Zealand is that reception is better in the afternoon than in the evening, so the people in Auckland or Dunedin are able to get a better reception in the afternoon than after 7 o'clock. For this reason the more important speeches are made between 3 o'clock and 7 o'clock and the less important after 7 o'clock. Those are significant considerations, and if such

things happen to us, we should have to make certain adjustments to our procedure.
My last example is Australia, where there is a House more comparable with ours, with more members than New Zealand's and with questions at the begining, but the Australians have exactly the same difficulty with their questions as do the New Zealanders. The member has to identify himself and read out his question so that those at the other end of the radio know what is going on. There debates have precisely the features of the New Zealand debates—there is no beginning and the main speeches are made at 7 o'clock, after which everyone goes to dinner or to the bar till the division at 10 o'clock.
If we have this experiment we shall have to think very carefully about the results for our procedure and whether we shall be left with precisely the same House as before. It may be found, as in Australia and New Zealand, that Members frequently make speeches not to the House or with relevance to the debate but to their constituents over the heads of those here listening.
One of the interesting features in both Australia and New Zealand is that there is no demand in either country for the televising of proceedings. As a result of their knowledge of what happens with broadcasting, they have decided that introducing television cameras might create great difficulties. If you were in charge of a television camera televising these proceedings at this moment, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am not sure how much inspiration you would find from putting the camera up and down the nearly empty benches on either side of the House.
I shall vote against both experiments, because till we have thought a good deal more about what might happen to our procedure and about how broadcasting might affect the House I think that it would be better not to have the experiments.

7.33 p.m.

Mr. Michael English: I am surprised by the hon. Member for Rye (Mr. Godman Irvine). Now that he has the prettier of the two major party leaders, he wants her to appear on


television only in the presence of Robin Day. That is the precise difference between us. What the advocates of broadcasting are seeking—and I can claim to have been one as long as I have been in the House—is the reality of this place coming over in some degree. No reality is perfect, neither broadcasting nor anything else, but there is substantially more reality in broadcasting than in the cold words of summaries written by a journalist, however expert he may be.
Right hon. and hon. Members may be cross-examined on television not by their opposite number, probably also expert in the subject, but by someone who is supposed to be able to cross-question not only them but many other people expert in many other subjects, even though, as has been said by the hon. Member for East Grinstead (Mr. Johnson Smith), he is expert only in television interviewing. They are cross-examined, not immediately they have made a statement but later, when they have had time for second thoughts, and then in a studio. The immediacy has gone and the scene is artificial even more artificial than the House at its highest and most formal moments.
I should like to congratulate my right hon. Friend and apologise to him. The congratulations and the apology contain a point. Some 10 years ago, I started off this subject in the old Publications and Debates Committee. The late Lord King-Hall, when a Member of this House, had carefully constructed that Committee's terms of reference so that it could consider broadcasting. I inherited his farsighted thought.
We produced a report, and one of our observations was that we should like always to ensure that this Palace in its public operative sense—the House and all its Committees—was reflected in broadcasting. I still agree with that.
I realise that the motions would put a great deal of responsibility on my right hon. Friend and the whole of his Services Committee, but that is the only practicable way of dealing with the matter. However, I hope that it is plain to my right hon. Friend that if either of the motions is carried, what we mean is still the sort of suggestion that was made in that report.
I was unable to be present to hear my right hon. Friend—and this is my apology

to him—because I was chairing, while the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Allison), now on the Opposition Front Bench, was sitting in the body of a Select Committee that was interviewing in public Treasury witnesses on the subject of the Public Expenditure White Paper, a subject of some importance to the country as a whole. We were surrounded by both academics and journalists, because of the nature of the subject.
It would be wrong if all Committees—such as that one—were totally wiped out by not being broadcast. I do not want to see massive continuous broadcasting of the sort that the hon. Member for Rye rightly criticised. At one meeting of our former Select Committee the presiding officer of a legislature—I do not want to name him, because that would be a breach of confidence—gave us evidence on how not to do it. He was in favour of broadcasting, but not in the way that his legislature had adopted.
The hon. Member for Rye rightly said that continuous broadcasting was ridiculous. It is ridiculous to everybody. It would change our procedure and it would be an imposition on the public. What is wanted is to lift the ban on broadcasting so that the House may appear as a House, not as individual Members but as the collective body that we all know it to be.
What I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on is his splitting of the two issues of radio and television. We have had a closed circuit experiment in radio broadcasting and we could go almost immediately to a public experiment in radio broadcasting. There is no need, as some, I believe, wish, to delay that until we get the Chamber ready for a television experiment. If the House so willed, we could go to radio broadcasting permanently in the sense of lifting the ban on it almost immediately.
There is a good reason for doing it that way. I shall vote for both motions tonight, but I am in favour of dealing with radio first. Technical problems are involved, and the hon. Member for East Grinstead, with his knowledge of broadcasting, rightly mentioned some of them. Some of these problems—not all—could be dealt with by trying radio


first: one does not start to swim at the deep end of the bath; one usually starts in the shallow end.
I come finally to a simple but important matter. Some hon. Members have mentioned editing. The first person to edit debates in the House or in its Committee, as you, Mr. Speaker, are well aware, is the person who sits in the Chair. Today, for example, we can all see hon. Members being called from each side of the House so that the Government side and Opposition side are represented, and in addition, I am sure, in his wisdom Mr. Speaker has been carefully selecting hon. Members according to whether they are for or against broadcasting, or even whether, like my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Mary-hill (Mr. Craigen), they are for radio and against television. So the first editor of our debates is Mr. Speaker.
If we broadcast portions of our debates so well balanced in relation to speeches by Front Benchers and back benchers representing various points of view that in summary form they represent the selection that has been made by the procedures of the House, we shall have a far more representative impact on the public than allowing others to select who is merely to be interviewed. That is the difference. It will also be far more intimate.
When we had the closed circuit radio broadcast experiment there was one thing, and one thing only, which was substantially different from the "Today in Parliament" programme. Every voice was represented from old Etonians to miners, from the North of Scotland to the South of England, Wales and Ulster. They were all there. When somebody reads our words over the air they are read by standard voices for the purely technical reason that the BBC could not have so many voices there. Consequently, our words are read in the uniform, less representative, accent of the whole of the United Kingdom. I should like to direct broadcasting so that the people will realise that this House is more representative of the United Kingdom as a whole than even they may now think it is.

7.42 p.m.

Mr. John Page: In my unaccustomed rôle as a parliamentary

hermaphrodite, voting for radio but against television, I find myself—I wonder whether on other occasions hon. Members have found themselves in the same position—persuaded against the speeches made by those who take a particular view. I find my withers unwrung by the starry-eyed speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Mr. Johnson Smith). The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) held me for some time, but his overweening self-righteousness put me off trying to follow him in the end. I was impressed by the hon. Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Fletcher) who is always brilliant, and by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen), equally brilliant, because his thesis is exactly the same as mine.
I want to put three questions. First, would the work of Parliament be more effectively carried out if we had radio or television? Secondly, would the standing of Parliament be improved? Thirdly, would communication between Parliament and the people be improved?
I do not see any reason why our procedures need be changed. I thought that the discussion of what happens in New Zealand and Australia was most fascinating, but it has never been decided that there is likely to be a full-time direct single-channel broadcast. Therefore, I see no reason why there should be a change in our procedures.
I turn now to the business of editing the clips, the little excerpts, which would be included in the radio or television pieces. I cannot believe that, however unbiased the editor may be, he would not have to show some kind of "demo" here. I believe that television has turned us into a demo society. Our constituents would expect us to create a tremendous row over the Government's disgraceful treatment of the self-employed and to stand up, shout, jeer and wave our Order Papers when the moment came in the same way as, I regret, the far more disgraceful performance of hon. Gentlemen opposite at the conclusion of our proceedings on the Industrial Relations Bill when an attempt was made to move the Mace. That is why I said my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead was starry-eyed. I believe that demos will be used as illustrative clips and that they


will derogate even more the esteem of this House in public opinion.
I think that many of the speeches that we make are long and dull. If the funny bits are put in they might be of advantage to those who have to listen to the debates. But we must accept that the whole atmosphere of this House would be changed if the cameras were allowed in. It would cease to be a private debating Chamber. As my Member of Parliament, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) said, sometimes an hon. Member will get up and make a single point in a debate and that might be taken as crystallising his whole attitude on a major subject. This is a debating Chamber, but with "the box" it will become the hustings.
Would the standing of Parliament be improved? I believe that a little more mystique is valuable to Parliament. [Laughter.] I do. I have always felt that the dance of the seven veils was more attractive than the full frontal confrontation. It was a subject of the greatest depression to me in my first year after becoming a Member of this honourable House to find that Cabinet Ministers, Privy Counsellors and even junior Ministers were just ordinary people. I thought that they were brilliant geniuses who, by their greater intellectural ability, were able to chart a better course for this country. I now know that they are extremely gifted, hard-working blokes who spend more time on their homework than those of us who remain indefinitely on the back benches. It is hard work and homework that gets promotion in this place. The 5 per cent. of genius is not always a necessary ingredient in the recipe.
When it comes to noisy exchanges, we shall find that people get as depressed with the House of Commons as it would become as they are with the gladiatorial pre-election television broadcasts when a Minister says that someone is a liar and somebody else says that he is a fool. I think that that must be very depressing for the ordinary voter. When these debating expressions are used—not that they would be used with you in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker—we take them with a dose of parliamentary salt. However, many people outside this place do not have the same ability to judge such ex-

pressions because they do not know the personalities so well.
Will communication between Parliament and the country as a whole be improved? I think that the answer must be "Yes". There are attractions in hearing the spoken word. I was rather annoyed with the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) because he rather spiked my guns. An hon. Friend of mine, in coming into this House, said "If you listen to 'Yesterday in Parliament' and 'What the Papers Say', you are better informed than 75 per cent. of your colleagues." "Yesterday in Parliament" runs for a quarter of an hour from 8.45 a.m. until 9 o'clock when some of us, who go to our businesses, have been at our desks for an hour or two while others—possibly hon. Gentlemen opposite—are still shaving or lying in bed. The editor of that programme told me that if it included excerpts—clips—instead of running for a quarter of an hour it would have to go on for half an hour. I wonder whether many of the people who now listen to that programme would turn it on if it were to last half an hour. The attraction of the voices and genuine exposition might be lost—

Mr. English: rose—

Mr. Page: I shall not give way. I interrupted the hon. Gentleman once, but it would be unfair to allow anybody to interrupt me. I am trying to find my peroration, which will not take very long.
It is significant that Australia and New Zealand have had radio broadcasting for about 40 years but have not bothered to put in "the box", or, if they have, nobody bothers to turn it on. It is a sensible and reasonable first step to find out whether radio is acceptable, attractive and important to people's lives. If it is after three or four years, let us experiment with "the box", but not tonight.

7.50 p.m.

Mrs. Lena Jeger: I hope that the hon. Member for East Grinstead (Mr. Johnson Smith) will not leave the Chamber because I am about to say something nice about him. I am sure that even he, with his great experience in television, would find difficulty in producing upon the screens of the nation an attractive sight of these


almost empty benches at this moment. I am sure it was right for my right hon. Friend to arrange this debate, because although the subject has often been debated before it is fair that a new Parliament should look at the matter again.
But I become concerned about our standards of value and the importance we attach to different subjects when I realise that at half-past ten or just before we shall begin to talk about a most important question affecting a large proportion of the people of this country. We are to consider important matters of housing and we are to debate amendments from the House of Lords. I do not know what good we think we are doing to relations between Parliament and the public when we have this rather narcistic talk about whether we should inflict ourselves on the eyeballs of the nation and leave important questions on the housing of our people to be debated as a postscript at 10.30 p.m.
That is perhaps a rather harsh comment, but I find myself wondering whether anybody, except perhaps other Members of Parliament and people in the media business, really cares what Members look like. We are talking not about some magic or some new process of democracy but about whether it is important that the images of a collection of men and women of diverse heights, of varied widths and of varied presentability, photogeneity and articulation should be shown against the backcloth of a fake elderly building.
The idea that this process has anything to do with democracy or with political education and involvement is completely meretricious. It presupposes, in a doctrine of total unwisdom, that because one sees one knows. There is no connection between seeing and understanding. In fact, the propaganda of the communicators is in danger of reducing us all to a state of moronic watching as the only form of literacy, a process which has gone so far in many American newspapers that there is little besides the strip cartoons to afflict the vision and one is expected to look only at pictures and not read the scarce print.
I suggest that in this atmosphere the inward eye, which is the only real vision, shrivels. I often think of what

Rupert Brooke wrote in one of his sonnets of his vision of Heaven where we would
see, no longer blinded by our eyes.
That is a profound statement to bear in mind in this age of the eyeball.
What is there to see in Parliament? If anybody really cared about the looks of the place, or the looks or non-looks of some of us, there would have been some demand for photography, but as far as I know no Press photographer has clamoured to sit in the Gallery, to sit aloft endlessly in the hope that someone will throw a book, pull somebody else's hair or snatch the Mace. We have survived without still pictures. Why cannot we survive without moving pictures?
We could, if we reduce this place to a pictorial performance, give our constituents all sorts of false ideas. The camera will not tell viewers that the hon. Member with a rather shifty look has bad eyes but is a good chap in Committee. The camera might catch a pale-looking washed-out hon. Lady who does not look much good, not because she is asleep but because she has been up all night in a Standing Committee. It is not possible to have a label saying "I have been up all night". Some people shut their eyes to concentrate, and they are not asleep even for a moment.
Our constituents will be misled, as many would be tonight, over the absence of their own Member of Parliament. He may be absent for the very good reason that he has been in Committee or in the Central Lobby. On the other hand a constituent might notice that his Member of Parliament is always present in the Chamber and think what an assiduous chap he was. The truth might be that he is such a bore that nobody will talk to him and nobody ever puts him on a Committee. I suggest that if we televise our proceedings we may get a false picture across to viewers.
There have been references to television experiments in Germany. My main recollection of the German experiment is of a German MP's wife saying "Whenever my husband's face comes on the television when they are doing Parliament, he is always picking his nose, but he rarely picks his nose. There must be a camera man who does not like him and is zooming in on him at unflattering moments".


It makes the whole situation frivolous and unworthy of political argument and debate.
I remember the late Aneurin Bevan discussing this question in 1959. He was considering the possibility in the context of running a channel devoted solely to Parliament. He said:
There ought to be a special channel that they can turn on and listen to us at any time. I am not arguing that we should have only special debates televised, but that there should be a special channel for the House of Commons itself … there is no reason why the other place also should not be televised."—[Official Report, 3rd November 1959; Vol. 612, c. 867.]
Fortunately, that is not what we are discussing tonight. I understand we are discussing the possibility of an edited, shortened programme, and I am worried about the practicalities of this. It seems to me that in this age of what ought to be economic stringency there will be thousands of feet of film taken day in and day out from which pieces will be snipped. On what basis? Who is to do the snipping, and to whom will the person who I shall call the editor be responsible? Is he to be in the position where Members feel that they have been underexposed or overexposed can put down a motion of protest? How can this job be done, and at what time can it be done?
In Australia and New Zealand the whole programme of Parliament had to be altered. Are we to have our main speeches early in the day so that the film can be prepared before everybody has gone to bed or shall we wait until the next day, in which case all the talk of immediacy is lost? Are we to do what has happened in Sweden and concentrate mainly on the big set pieces, the big occasions? I think that would be a failure, because the essence of Parliament is not the big speech. I cannot imagine anything less photogenic than the Chancellor of the Exchequer standing for three hours at the Dispatch Box solemnly and solidly reading his Budget speech. It is not the State Opening that is important. The real essence of Parliament is in our working Committees, and our sometimes ill-attended late-night debates. Sometimes an Adjournment debate is very important, but it takes place in an empty House. Those occasions form the lifeblood of our Parliament.
If we allow ourselves to be talked into a position in which what looks best counts most, we shall fail Parliament and democracy. I insist that those in favour of television are saying that what looks best must be best, because television is a visual art. Nobody switches on his television set to listen to the words. Television means looking at the picture. People who wish to see pictures must make pictures. That is the danger we face.
If we discuss this experiment in terms of covering other activities such as Select Committees, which Select Committees and which Standing Committees do we mean? Who is to make these decisions? How are we to make intelligible by means of snippets the long and often seemingly tedious work that Members of Parliament must do in Committee? It will distort Parliament, however unintended by the organisers of the experiment, just as when a film of a book is made, the book is altered. A film is never as good as the book—it is all pictures and no writing.
Other parts of the wholeness of our parliamentary life must be taken into account. Sometimes hon. Members dictate letters or interview constituents. Even when someone is having a row with a Whip or talking to someone in the corridor, such things cannot become part of the programme on the small screen. However, they are all part of parliamentary life. Just as we cannot separate all the ingredients in a splendid pudding, we cannot fix the eye of the camera on one or two separate aspects of parliamentary life. Parliament is a corporate affair. I do not think that its complexity can possibly be conveyed in a few yards of nightly film. The danger is that a false illusion might be given of participation and of revelation. That would be a superficial trivialisation of Parliament. I hope that the House will reject the proposal.

8.2 p.m.

Mr. George Reid: I should like to answer the points made by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Jeger) in a moment. First, I admit to an interest in this matter. I was a television producer for a number of years.


I was responsible for covering party conferences in Scotland and England for many years, and in the mid-60s I was secretary to various ITV working parties which reported to the House of Commons on broadcasting its proceedings. On that occasion—in 1966—the motion was lost by one vote. Supposedly one Scots Member returned from the airport finding that his flight was cancelled. I trust that this motion will meet with a happier fate.
The broad guidelines to this debate have been establshed for almost 20 years. In 1959 Aneurin Bevan, with his usual vision and percipience, called for the very new medium of television to be used to re-establish the connection between the public at large and the House in particular. Hon. Members will recall that he said:
It is a humiliating state of affairs in which Members are picked out to take part in broadcasting on the ipse dixit of the bureaucracy of Broadcasting House.
Many hon. Members today will find that that situation still obtains—in Scotland as well as south of the border. The centre of debate has moved from this House into the television studio. Often the television producers use the situation to produce a pure gladiatorial conflict where the flow of debate in the House is not necessarily reflected.
There are two good and basic reasons for televising the proceedings of the House. The first is that it is extremely foolish for a powerful institution such as this to deny itself access to the most powerful medium of communication known in our time. Secondly, it is undemocratic to deny the public at large the best possible chance to see the House in action.
There have been many changes since the mid-1960s, not least in the hardware of television. I suspect that many hon. Members still think that the cameras to be installed in the House will be of 1960s vintage, the House being floodlit almost to football stadium proportions and large microphones being used. That is no longer true because the technology over the past three or four years has been that of miniaturisation. Like the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead), I prefer to delay the televising of this House until new equipment comes on the market within six or seven

months' time and until the new light-sensitive cameras are available to work at 10 foot or 15 foot candle power. Those cameras would be installed under the Galleries, with operators hidden from the view of the Chamber, with small microphones being used. That would be a sensible course of action. There is no reason why the radio broadcasting of this House should not go forward now.
It is an essential pre-condition of broadcasting in the House that a parliamentary broadcasting unit be established. I would be most unhappy about the control of broadcasting falling into the hands either of the BBC or of the IBA. We need a Parliamentary Committee to overlook this area. The staff must be paid from a parliamentary fund. The staff must be similar to the Hansard reporters. Hon. Members should not be mistaken that this will not be an expensive process. Taking into account capital equipment, we shall need 10 video tape colour machines costing £100,000 each. We shall need a large staff. The average television director is paid from £6,000 to £7,000 a year these days.
Taking those factors into consideration and the massive volume of video tape required, we are speaking of expenditure of from £3 million to £4 million annually. I think it is worth the cost.

Mrs. Jeger: Would not the constituents of the hon. Gentleman perhaps prefer that money to be spent on housing?

Mr. Reid: My constituents in Scotland will welcome the opportunity of seeing how often the subject of housing in Scotland is debated in this House. They would welcome the opportunity for these matters to be seen on television in the Scottish Assembly. I appreciate that this is an individual point of view. However, I think that the £3 million or £4 million annually will be well spent. But I do not want hon. Members to deceive themselves as to the total cost of the operation.
Another reason why I favour a parliamentary broadcasting unit is the essential one of editing and the basic process of cutting tapes. If this were a party conference and I were employed by the BBC or ITV, or were seconded to a unit, I would be tempted to dress up the debate now. This is a rather empty House. Television is not just reportage. It is


theatre to some extent. I should be tempted to look at two hon. Members, then cut away, and take the last interjection. As 10 o'clock approached I should be inclined to pan up from the table to the clock. That would be essential as 10 o'clock approached. There would be certain basic rules, such as that Members who were asleep would not be included in the picture. Then I would cut away to hon. Members entering the Chamber.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Privy Council Office (Mr. William Price): Is the hon. Gentleman arguing in favour of editorial control?

Mr. Reid: There must be a degree of editorial control, otherwise Parliament could be brought into disrespect. We are speaking in terms of a programme lasting half an hour. There will have to be bridging shots. It this debate were to be televised we should have to allot five minutes of television time to the Leader of the House. I might show two or three of the interjections from the hon. Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Fletcher). These would all be matters of value judgment. Ground rules would have to be established by Members of Parliament.
As a new Member, I did not understand the necessity and value of procedure until I had been at Westminster for six months. I believe that Sir Kenneth Pickthorne said procedure is all the constitution that Britain has.
Returning to the Minister's point, unless there is careful control, many procedural points which have great political value could be misconstrued.
Closed circuit television would be a good idea. It is sad to go around this place and see monitors with nothing on them but a caption. I see no reason why people who wait for several hours in St. Stephen's Hall should not have a closed circuit feed to look at. This also would be useful for Members in their private rooms.
I would also support the idea of a "television Hansard". For the first time, we would have the chance of a real record for posterity stored on one-inch tape. This would be an opportunity for future historians. But we should then need a continuous feed, and that presents dangers. In three or four years, with the increase in use of coaxial cable, with

whole cities wired for television, a continuous feed could be sent out to newspapers, clubs, and one or two interested bodies. In future, with 30 or 40 channels on coaxial cable, there could be a continuous feed, but not in our present financial stringency.
What we should aim for is an edited "Today in Parliament" lasting 30 minutes and run by television professionals responsible to a Committee of this House. We should be very chary of extracting bits and pieces for use in programmes like "News at Ten" or regional news programmes, because editorial judgment there at times can go awry.
Four consequences would follow broadcasting the House. First, if we are to have at 11 p.m. or 9 p.m. a televised "Today in Parliament" with pictures of Members and Ministers in the Chamber, clearly the Press would have to have facilities for photographs for their first editions by about 10.30 p.m. Those photographs could be taken from the video tape, but we may find that photographers have to be introduced into the House as a consequence.
Second, we could never go back on a television experiment because the House would then be seen to be denying people what they assume to be a basic freedom.
Third, television should increasingly have the same Lobby facilities as the Press. I see no reason why there should not be an extension of television studios in the House for the quick Lobby interview which is currently done by the Press.
Last, Scotland is shortly to have its own assembly. We shall have certain new forms of government and a different Committee structure. There, too, there should be broadcasting from the start. In both that assembly and this House broadcasting could well lead to the two Chambers becoming once again a focus of national debate.

8.13 p.m.

Mr. John Ovenden: I shall try to obey Mr. Speaker's injunction to be brief. I fully support both motions.
No new arguments which were not put forward in previous debates have been put forward tonight against televising Parliament. The real issue that we must consider is not whether it is to our convenience, whether we can afford to allow


this process if it would disrupt our lives or upset our traditions, or whether, as my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Jeger) suggested, it would portray such an image of Parliament as we would not like portrayed. We should be far more concerned with portraying an honest picture of Parliament even if it might at times be embarrassing.
One hon. Member has implied that some of the language used here and some of the scenes which take place would be misunderstood in the country. If those things are to be misunderstood, the best thing is to ensure that they do not happen, that the House conducts itself in a more businesslike way. We should consider whether democracy and our democratic traditions will be improved and strengthened by the advent of television and whether it will increase the understanding and the influence of Parliament. On any reasoned assessment, the answer must be that it will.
It has been said that people would misunderstand if benches were empty or individual Members were not present, but those misunderstandings would arise because they had not seen enough of the workings of Parliament. There would have to be a period, during which Parliament would be televised, for people fully to appreciate what happens here. That is no excuse for keeping the cameras out.
It is strange that some hon. Members should regard television as an intruder. I have even heard it said that these discussions are private, as though they were of no concern to people outside. People have a right to see what happens here. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Fletcher) said that only about 10 per cent. of people are politically interested. That is a low figure, but even accepting it, we owe a duty to that section. I am sure that if politics and political discussion were covered more fully in the media that 10 per cent. would soon increase. That low proportion reflects a lack of interest only by the media in our proceedings.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) implied that anyone who wished to see what happened in Parliament could come to the public gallery. That remark could only have

been made by a London Member. It is impossible for many people from other areas to come here purely on the chance of getting a ticket. On average, it would take a constituent of mine 2,000 years to be assured of a ticket on the present allocation system, because we get fewer each than 40 tickets which guarantee a place in the gallery. So in an average adult lifetime someone has a one in 40 or 50 chance of getting into the public gallery. That chance is much higher if he lives in or near London.
The lack of television coverage has led to a decline in Parliament's influence. So often party leaders make important statements on policy outside rather than here, because they have the television cameras present and can address a wider audience. We have to live with that. We cannot seek to reverse that trend merely by saying that it is the duty of politicians to make their major statements here. We have to give them the chance to make their statements here, yet still to address that wider audience.
I believe that television will be good for Parliament not because it will allow us to keep our traditions completely unchanged but because it will be a catalyst for change. Our discussions often become stilted, with no real exchange of views. That sort of debate could not take place on television; it would force us to change the way in which we discuss our business. This Chamber often seems out of touch with events outside. My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South said that it was very strange that we should spend the best part of the day discussing an issue like this and leaving an important topic like housing till late at night. I agree, and that is something that the public should also be aware of. They would be more aware of it if our deliberations were televised and they could see for themselves that we had spent the whole day discussing an issue like this and leaving housing till later.
Those of us who want changes and progress in this institution, who want it to evolve towards a more businesslike and efficient procedure, will welcome television because it will assist us to that objective.
Finally, I want to comment on the case made about television distorting. To


listen to hon. Members who have spoken during the debate one would believe that only television is capable of distortion and that every other part of the media is completely free of any such charge, but if one were to take to their logical conclusions the arguments used by some of my hon. Friends and some hon. Members of the Opposition one would definitely ban the Press from this Chamber.
Everyone is aware of instances of distortion which have occurred in the Press but which could not take place on television. It would be quite impossible for a television commentator to persuade his audience that a spokesman in the House had made a scintillating case for a particular issue when in fact his case had been abysmal. It would be impossible to get away with that sort of argument when the viewer could see the spokesman on the screen. Yet how often does that sort of distortion take place in the columns of newspapers? There is no better medium than television for exposing the insincerity, pomposity, or, perhaps, at times, even the humbug which some hon. Members exhibit. In any event, the television channels have a far superior record of impartiality than any newspaper in the country. The guarantees that we have within the charters of the television broadcasting companies are much better guarantees for us of impartiality than we could get from any newspaper.
We have nothing to fear whatever from television coming into the Chamber. It will be a stimulus to us. It will be a catalyst for change, and it will increase the importance and influence of this institution in the country as a whole.

8.21 p.m.

Mr. Peter Morrison: The hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Ovenden) raised the question whether we have anything to fear from television. I agree that we have nothing to fear at all. The question is whether the introduction of television into the Chamber will increase the confidence which the general public have in this House. I am sure that however right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House vote on this issue, they will base their decision on the confidence factor.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Mary-hill (Mr. Craigen), who like myself is a relative newcomer to the House, is an

advocate of open government. He said—and I agree—that his instinct before coming to this place was that it would be a good idea to introduce radio and, indeed, television. But however we may feel on that issue, the Lord President has suggested having a three-week experiment. That period is far too short. There is no chance with a three-week experiment that a proper judgment can be made as to whether television or radio has benefited the House. Apart from anything else, in three weeks there will be no chance at all for the public to get bored. We must take that aspect carefully into account.
However, whether or not that period is too short, right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House seem to agree that what is termed an experiment is very likely indeed to become something permanent, because there will he some weight of opinion behind it. Despite being an advocate of open government, therefore, I should like to make one or two observations on the issue of, basically, television.
First, I wonder whether there is any public demand for this. I have received no letters from constituents asking me to vote either way. One would imagine that if there were great public demand to see us all working in the Chamber, one would have had at least one or two letters about it; but not so.
When I arrived as a new Member just a year ago, a most experienced right hon. Gentleman said to me something which has stuck in my mind. He pointed out that it was the easiest thing in the world to pass legislation in this place—provided that one was in government—but he said that it was the most difficult thing to change attitudes. It seems to me that it could be much more difficult to change an attitude were we to go on the air. I say that simply because I think there is a chance, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) argued—and quite a strong chance—that we would lose that air of informality, without which we would tend to take up more entrenched positions and, therefore, attitudes would be less likely to change.
Some hon. Members argue that we have lost that air of informality because we already have the Strangers' Gallery.


But having 300 or 400 people watching us in our debates is quite different from having perhaps 10 million or 15 million people looking at us on television.
The best corollary of this is the presidential Press conference in the United States, which used to be held on an informal basis in the President's own office in the White House. Certainly all the journalists apparently agreed that it was far better and far more educational and informative for them when done on that informal basis than when it is done, as it is now, in front of television cameras and so on, where the President must inevitably be much more careful about exactly what he says since he is totally and utterly on the record.
Then there is the problem which has been discussed at great length, that of editorial control. Who is to exercise it? Some hon. Members have suggested that we should do it ourselves. That seems to be utterly unrealistic. As far as I am concerned, there would not be enough time in the day for any hon. Member to become part of the editorial panel. If that is so, we shall therefore have to have outsiders to do it, and one thus hands over control to the producers and directors of the BBC, ITA and so on.
I should have thought that in all parts of the House there were complaints enough about editorial policy at present. I hear that the Prime Minister has some complaints. If there are complaints about the Press, I dread to think what complaints could arise about the editing of the televising of the House and this Chamber.
We have one other alternative, and that is to have one channel which could broadcast continuously. Personally I cannot imagine anything more boring. I should imagine that it would be turned off by 95 per cent. or more of the public.
There is a quite conclusive argument that one of the reasons why our fellow countrymen are cynical towards politicians is that we appear too much on the media anyway. If our proceedings in the Chamber are televised, inevitably the number of hours of politicians appearing on television is bound to increase.
Another important argument is that we should not introduce television into the

Chamber because to do so would give the impression that this Chamber was Parliament when, in fact, it is only part of Parliament. My right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) referred to exactly that matter. He talked about Select Committees, Standing Committees, party committees and so on. He suggested that these things also needed to be televised to give the whole picture. That is absolutely correct, and I go along with him on that if one is to give the right picture of what happens in Parliament. To be realistic, however, it does not seem possible to televise Select Committees, Standing Committees and party committees as well as the Chamber—unless one is to have nothing but Parliament on television, despite the fact that we may not have a special channel for it.
The special conditions aside, however, the fact remains that hon. Members in all parts of the House have many other duties. They have their constituency mail to attend to. Depending on which constituency they represent, that can be very arduous task. For me it is not particularly arduous because my constituents do not like writing to me very much. In some cases it is very arduous. Hon. Members have outside engagements which enable them to keep in touch with what is happening in the real world as opposed to what is happening here. Hon. Members must meet delegations and so on. These are all exceptionally important parts of the duties of a Member of Parliament. A wrong impression would be given by reporting simply the proceedings in the Chamber.
There is one final reason why I am against televising our proceedings. I do not know much about Labour Party associations, but we on this side are chosen for a variety of different reasons to fight in the constituencies we now represent. We are not chosen because we would look good on the television were we to be elected. We are chosen because our constituency associations take the view that they will get on well with us and perhaps our views coincide with theirs. Nothing to do with television enters their minds.
I have a vision of some poor chap appearing before a Conservative selection committee. Perhaps he is a small fat man who wears glasses and does not look


too prepossessing. He would make a good Member, but the members of the selection committee have to bear in mind the question of his appearing on television. Conservative associations would inevitably begin to think in terms of television personalities for their candidates and eventually for their Members.
Finally, when they are elected Members of Parliament become public servants. When we are in the Chamber we are debating and legislating, not speaking to the public. If we televise the House, I suspect that we shall always be speaking to the public and that the debates will be like one non-stop General Election campaign lasting not for three weeks but for the length of the Parliament.

8.31 p.m.

Mr. Max Madden: We have heard that the question of the admission of the Press to Parliament was a very long and bitter one. The question of the admission of television to Parliament has not been as long or bitter, but it has been very controversial. I hope that we end that controversy tonight by agreeing to the motions.
I do not agree with the hon. Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Morrison); I think that Members of Parliament are public servants. The public have a right to know of our activities through all the media—the Press, radio and television. To deny radio and television the right to record our proceedings is to deny the public and our constituents their full right to know what is happening here.
We have heard of the widespread recognition that there is of the power and influence of television, and to a lesser extent of radio. In recent years television has done an enormous amount to bring momentous political issues into the homes and minds of people throughout the world. We have heard stressed the great importance of televising the Watergate inquiry. Television brought to the American people and to American politicians the full obscenity of the war in Vietnam far more vividly than any newspaper report could have done.
The hon. Member for the City of Chester admitted that not many of his constituents write to him. Many of my constituents write to me. Following the television reports from Bangladesh I received many letters from my constitu-

ents, because television brought home dramatically to many people the whole horrors of famine in Bangladesh. Likewise, television coverage of Parliament would do much to present Parliament's affairs in an interesting way to the people.
It has been said that people can read the newspapers. Indeed they can, but the presentation of our affairs in the newspapers is in many cases unsatisfactory. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Ovenden) that if the logic of many speeches were to be followed through the Press representatives who report our affairs would be excluded, because they have the power to select what is reported in their newspapers, to distort what is said and to intersperse straight reporting with opinion. If we defeat the motions tonight, it will be wrong logically for us to continue to have the Press present.
Television would allow the public to know more about our extraordinary procedures. One of my most interesting experiences as a new Member has been to talk to my constituents about our procedures. Many people are astonished about the hurdles and obstacles in the way of progress in Parliament. I believe that television would demonstrate that difficulty far more accurately and dramatically than any other medium could possibly do. It would help us to explain to our constituents the problems which confront us in our day-to-day work. It would demonstrate the weakness of Members of Parliament in trying to influence the Government and the executive.
I should like to comment particularly on the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson), who feared that selection would be in the hands of people outside this House if we were to agree to the motions. He overlooked the fact that the power of selection is already in the hands of the media. Members of Parliament who rarely come here tend to be interviewed a great deal on television. There are television stars whom one rarely sees in this place, yet their words and commentaries are taken by the viewers as representing fully the views of Members of Parliament in general. If we were to have television recording what happens here, many of those Members who are now television


stars would have to make their contributions in the debates. That, of course, may be an argument against televising our debates, but one or two of those Members might be damaged financially because they would lose the fees which they currently enjoy. I believe that this is an important aspect which should not be disregarded.
Television, by recording what happens here, would present the debates as they occurred, and to that extent the power of the media to select people and issues would be reduced. Far from giving power to people outside this House, as my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone argued, it would decrease the power of television executives and producers to determine what people saw on their television sets in their homes as current participation in political debate. The Press can now do that job. The Press can select what is reported. Should the Press, therefore, be kicked out of Parliament? In logic, if we reject these motions the Press should be ejected from this House.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) argued forcibly that the presence of television would alter the character of our debates. Many of my hon. Friends and I fail to see why this should happen. My right hon. Friend argued that television could sensationalise and trivialise. Again, the Press can do this. I do not see why there is greater suspicion that television will indulge in these practices more than the Press does. The medium would lose what power it has to do this if the motion were accepted. If we can transfer political argument and debate from the television studios to the Floor of the House, people outside as well as inside will benefit.
We have heard that 21 Parliaments have agreed to the televising of their affairs. There is a diverse list of countries, as different as Albania and Australia, and Japan and Sweden. Tonight in this historic debate there is an opportunity for the British Parliament to catch up with some of those other Parliaments and allow the entry of the television camera. We should not fear that entry but should welcome it. I am certain that it will be welcomed by the vast majority of the British public, including our constituents.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: First, I must apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the House for having been absent for a period during the debate. I had an unavoidable prior engagement.
We take a long time to get things done in this country. We started decimalising our coinage when the first florin was minted in 1870 but it has taken us about 100 years to complete the process. It appears to be taking an equally long time to complete the process of allowing the British people the fullest possible access to our debates. That is what we are talking about. I prefer to put it that way rather than to talk about televising and broadcasting the proceedings of the House of Commons.

Mr. Anthony Fell: Decimalisation of the coinage was a disaster. Let us hope that this will be better, if it is approved.

Mr. Macmillan: I am not sure that many people would agree with my hon. Friend that decimal coinage was either disastrous, or that it is relevant to this debate—unless he is thinking of installing coin boxes for television sets about the House of Commons.
I accept that there are strong arguments for privacy in our debates. It was said in the past that we should not allow strangers to listen to our debates, that we should exclude the Press and that we should not have the Hansard record of our proceedings. All these arguments were thrashed out over the years and the objections to the Press and to Hansard were as valid as the objections to broadcasting and televising our pro-proceedings now are.
It is said that these proposals would alter the nature of our debates. Of course they will—I think for the good. They have done so already in many cases. They have removed the most important debates from this Chamber to Lime Grove and to other studios of the BBC and ITV. They have removed Mr. Speaker or Mr. Deputy Speaker from the Chair for a radio interview. Those are the debates which inform the people, not the ones that take place in this Chamber.
The strongest possible reason for starting this experiment to broadcast and


televise the proceedings in this Chamber is so that the public at large—those who elect us—can see what we get up to.
The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) referred to some unfortunate remarks which he or a friend of his overheard about a radio discussion between two politicians. Apparently the producer of the programme, in his arrogance, as the hon. Member said, felt that their performance was not good enough or dramatic enough, and told them to do it again. Although it may be possible for that sort of thing to happen to individual Members taking part in discussions in television studios, unless the Chair is singularly lax it would be impossible for that to happen here.
The hon. Member for Penistone referred to the clash of media and gave the impression that we would become part of the entertainment industry. The danger of making politics part of the entertainment industry is far greater in debates that take place outside this Chamber than it is with debates which take place here.

Mr. John Mendelson: The right hon. Gentleman has misquoted me. I said that the House is a workshop and that the quiet debates among people who spend a lifetime in industry here, sometimes in the evenings, will never be reported. If the right hon. Gentleman is not dramatic enough nobody will tell him to do it again but he will never be seen at all on television.

Mr. Macmillan: That does not seem any different from the present position. The hon. Member for Penistone referred to the power of the media. We cannot complain that this experiment may lead to an invasion of privacy. Nor is it likely in practice to lead to people playing to the gallery, altering their style or tone to prevent the reporting, through sound or sight, of the work of the quiet workshop.
I remember an occasion when some constituents of mine went into the Strangers' Gallery, and what impressed them most was not the drama but the quiet work which they saw going on. In fact, they came here rather hostile to Parliament and to politicians, but, after watching a rather thinly attended House conducting a somewhat boring debate, they left the Gallery with a changed view because they had seen nothing dramatic but had watched Parliament at work.
If there were any question of bias in the way television or radio reported our proceedings, there would be the Press to act as a check. The hon. Member for Penistone referred to an occasion when, as he put it, television producers had been subjected to pressure at private breakfasts in the Connaught Hotel. That could not have happened if the Press had been there. The same would apply here. Whatever editing is done by the television people will be selecting part of a process the whole of which has been seen by others.
Discussions in a studio which are edited before being put on tape are not known because they take place before no one but a small studio audience. Our discussions here, on the other hand, will be edited and reported in the full knowledge that the Press also is doing its reporting and editing, and the two accounts will act as a check one upon the other.
All that those of us who wish to see both these experiments started are seeking to do is to create what I call an electronic extension of the Strangers' Gallery. It is important to remember that that is what we are seeking and to bear in mind that television as a medium can do two quite separate things. It can bring the speaker into the home of the viewer, which is what the normal radio interview does, what party political broadcasts are designed to do, and what most studio performances are intended to do. But the other thing that television can do is to move the viewer to the scene where events are taking place, as happens with outside broadcasts, for example, of a tennis match, a cricket match, a football match or whatever it may be.
I think it important that television should transport the viewer to the Strangers' Gallery rather than seek to transport us to the viewer's front room. It is the latter, if television were allowed to do that, which, I believe, would give an opportunity to individual Members to exploit it and would tend to distort the argument. It should not be forgotten that the television screen can distort argument by putting a frame, as it were, round the person who is arguing so that, if there is argument and counter-argument, the emphasis tends to rest on the person last seen in the frame. That does


not happen with radio, and it does not happen in live proceedings. It is important that it should not happen through the televising of the House of Commons.
I should like to see a radio programme broadcasting our proceedings live, constantly transmitted on its own frequency, reporting everything that happens in this Chamber. I should like to see a unit set up to take television from the Chamber live, all the time, not broadcast but sent by line to the Press, the television companies and whoever wished to take it. I hope that it would go to our great cities and be shown in town halls or county halls or in any suitable place so that those many of our constituents who will never have the opportunity to come to this place will at least be able to go there—whether in groups, in school parties or as individuals—and see through television in their own town the House of Commons at work. As for the rest, once the tape is made, I should leave the use of it, the editing of it and the handling of it to the television companies themselves.
I hope that the House will agree tonight to start these two experiments because in so doing we shall be making a major contribution to the understanding by people throughout the United Kingdom of what parliamentary democracy is really all about.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: I was sorry that a few moments ago my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mrs. Hayman) left the Chamber, because she had been sitting here without shoes on, occasionally putting her feet up on the bench in front and showing her ankles. I draw hon. Members' attention to that because it would have been a marvellous shot and any television producer who did not focus on those ankles for a second or two would not have been worthy of his job.
We have to remember that we are putting the House into the hands of people whose job it is to entertain. It is not unusual for newer Members to favour televising our proceedings. Very often those who favour such a move represent marginal constituencies. I do not say this in any patronising or disrespectful way, because an hon. Member with a marginal seat is anxious to get

himself across, to project his image and get the maximum possible coverage. That is understandable; we have all done it at some time.
I remember when Bernadette Devlin ran across the Chamber and clawed the hair of the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling). What a marvellous action shot that would be for a "match-of-the-day" beginning to "Today in Parliament". It is no good saying that we would have the chance to edit and control such things, because we would not. Every minute of the day something is happening in this Chamber which would make a good picture. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) was holding us a card earlier today trying to catch the attention of the Serjeant at Arms. His eye was drawn to the lady in the public gallery who seemed to have a telescope trained upon us. These are the things upon which a television camera cannot help but focus.
Any hon. Member who wants publicity merely has to put down a Question on abortion or the football pools or to raise on the Adjournment a debate about an elderly widow who cannot get her new glasses under the National Health Service and he gets the headlines. That is the entertainment side of the business. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. Price), who I see is to reply to the debate from the Government Front Bench, told me when I had been in the House for two or three weeks that he was leading the procession at a village fête on the Saturday and that he was going to ride a penny-farthing bicycle. I asked him "Why are you going to do that?" He said "Because I have a majority of 421, and I could not borrow an elephant".

Mr. William Price: There was an unfortunate sequel to that incident. I turned up, and so did the penny-farthing bike, and then we discovered that I was not big enough to get on it.

Mr. Ashton: I can see my hon. Friend's point.
Once television starts to take an interest in anything, it kills it off. It has killed off interest in football. The gates fell year by year because people could watch the game on television. Television has killed off the cinema, and churches have


even had to alter the times of their services because people want to get home for the big film on Sunday night. Look at "Stars on Sunday". That is what television has done for the Church. People sit at home and watch the bishop and the actress and Shirley Bassey, and things like that. The same thing will happen to this House once it goes on television. It will not happen in the first six months, of course. In that period everything will be circumspect and everything will be reported, but in time the House of Commons will be found to be boring and and deadly dull—and, let us face it, it is.
For 90 per cent. of the time proceedings in the Chamber are so boring, complicated and dull that even Members of Parliament do not come in. They do not need to. It is all in Hansard next day. By reading Hansard, we can all read in 20 minutes what happened in eight hours. People in the Strangers' Gallery are bored stiff. This is a job in which one has to spend years acquiring detailed knowledge of the procedures and years becoming familiar with what Mr. Speaker will permit and what he rules out of order. The whole process takes a great deal of understanding.
After six months or a year, when the novelty has worn off and the viewing figures have become negligible, television producers will have an irresistible temptation to show the trivial, something that has not been shown before. They will say "It needs livening up. We will show this angle." Already on the radio there is a programme called "The Worst Show on the Wireless". If we televise the House, the title will have to be changed.
Let us take one serious matter which was debated in the Chamber last week, the Industry Bill, a major piece of legislation which has caused tremendous controversy throughout the country, with headlines in the newspapers every day, rows with the CBI, which went to Downing Street, and continual argument over the past two years or more. Yet there were fewer hon. Members in the Chamber than there are now, and understandably so. Those who were present were the ones who wanted to speak. There were others who wanted to speak but could not take part in the debate. They had been to Mr. Speaker, who had said "I am sorry, there is no chance, even though

it is a two-day debate." They left because they had other things to do. They could read about the debate in the newspapers and in Hansard, and they were not prepared to stay here and listen to other people's speeches.
What sort of impression does that give to people outside, to the party workers who slogged in marginal seats, knocking on doors and collecting bobs and tanners? What sort of impression does it give to people who fought the matter through conference and gave their ideas?

Mr. Tom Ellis: Is my hon. Friend saying that he is frightened of showing the House on television?

Mr. Ashton: In effect, yes. I am saying that it will be damaging to Parliament and to politics. The people who strove so hard to get the party into power and see the Industry Bill go through Parliament would be bitterly disillusioned to see a debate with half a dozen people present. We might say that we would all listen to it, if it were televised. But what about the other things we are supposed to do?
I counted up in my diary just now that I had 13 engagements in this building last week. Every one of them was important and necessary. I met trade unionists about redundancies at Ebbw Vale and other trade unionists about whether we should build the HS146. I went to a marvellous meeting of the steel group, a question-and-answer session with Monty Finniston, boss of the British Steel Corporation, which was well worth televising.
In the Chamber at the same time there was a debate on pneumoconiosis, affecting many of my constituents, many poor old miners who are coughing their lungs up after 40 years in the industry. Under the Bill which was being debated they were to be given some money. They would have been justified in asking "Where the hell's Joe Ashton? Why isn't he there when this is so important to us?". But there was not to be a vote against the Bill, and I thought that it was more important to my constituents that I should hear Monty Finniston concerning the closure of Ebbw Vale.

Mr. Madden: I assume that my hon. Friend reports regularly to his constituents. If he does not, perhaps he would


agree that hon. Members should report regularly and in great detail on what they are doing. As a result of that process, it would become clear to my hon. Friend's constituents that he has to make judgments about the importance of various engagements. Is not that part of the parliamentary rôle?

Mr. Ashton: I report to my constituents and my party quite often, but with 100,000 constituents scattered over 300 square miles, 72 villages, and eight newspapers, what guarantee have I that they will read what I say in the newspapers instead of watching television? I am prepared to put in a time sheet. I used to do that at the end of the week when I was on the shop floor. My employers made me do it, and I should be delighted to do the same again.
But how do we get across the true position to the viewer who switches on the programme once every three months, because he has nothing else to do, or out of curiosity, and who sees empty benches and thinks that a lot of hon. Members are playing golf or going to the cinema? We have seen that sort of thing on the occasions when Parliament has been televised.
I remember what happened when the State Opening of Parliament was televised. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was down below sitting in his place and I was sitting up here in mine. But what happened? The cameras panned down to show my hon. Friend but they did not show me. On the Saturday when I got back to my constituency, I was told "We saw the hon. Member for Bolsover, but we did not see you. Where were you in the Chamber?" That is the sort of thing one will have answer for.
The criterion of good television will not be the speeches. It will be the question-and-answer sessions. That is why some hon. Members are invited to appear on television more than others. Some hon. Members can say what they want to say in 10 words and make their point; others need 10 minutes. Television is not the medium for a 10-minute speech. It wants table-tennis type entertainment—the quick rapport, with two contestants in the arena. That does not happen in this Chamber. There is a fair amount of it at Question Time, but if we go on

television Members will have to stand up and read their Questions. They will have to mouth words
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make an investigation
into this, that or the other. There are only about 16 Oral Questions reached each day at present. If we have to read out our Questions, only eight will be answered. Furthermore, let us not forget all the extra number of Questions that would be tabled. There would be a trebling of the number of Questions for Question Time, because it will be the only part of Parliament worth televising.
These are the problems we shall face. If we are honest with ourselves we must admit that at present the proceedings of the House are boring. But what television wants is entertainment. The two do not go together.
There is one other major factor that we should not forget. Some of us have difficulty in explaining to our constituents why Parliament does not debate certain subjects. Many hon. Members want to debate the Shrewsbury pickets, but we never get the opportunity to do so. We raise the topic at PLP meetings and everywhere else, but it does not get debated. A lot of constituents ask their Members "Why did you not debate that matter on Wednesday instead of debating the White Fish Bill" or whatever it might be, although, of course, that subject might be of great importance to some hon. Members.
This is the problem we shall never defeat. We shall never convince people outside the House why we are not debating urgent issues of the day instead of other matters which perhaps Conservative Members are interested in. People assume that what appears in the newspapers today will be debated in Parliament the following afternoon. In time, like all other forms of entertainment—football, theatre, politics, the cinema or even religion—we shall become gradually narrowed into that square little box.
Let me make clear that I am not against sound broadcasting. Indeed, I shall vote for the motion on sound broadcasting. People will then be able to listen carefully to what has gone on and will not gaze at their televisions wondering why so-and-so is showing his braces and


why somebody else appears to be nodding off. In that way, by listening to broadcasts people form their own pictures. I believe that if our proceedings were televised, within a year we should have more trivia and less and less interest in Parliament.

9.4 p.m.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: I at least agree with the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) that the House should be given the opportunity to debate the so-called "Shrewsbury two", because there is certainly another side to the argument which he and his hon. Friends like to put forward.
I used to agree with the hon. Gentleman in his objection to the idea of television cameras being brought into this Chamber but this evening I shall be voting for the motion to bring in television—even though the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) and some others in this debate have not done our common cause very much good. They have frightened the House to some extent with the dreary details involved in televising our performance. Damn the details! There is a much more important issue at stake.
The hon. Member for Derby, North—goodness knows why—instanced a long dead relative of mine, Colonel Onslow, who opposed bringing the Press into the Gallery. The colonel got burned in effigy for his pains—and serve him right. I have no wish to follow in his footsteps, although it is not the fear of doing so which makes me take the view I do.
I take the view that only by televising our proceedings can we save parliamentary democracy. Of course it will bring changes. Some might be let in willingly, and others less willingly. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) might be just as willing as he has always shown himself to be to expose his political nakedness fully and frontally across the Chamber. That pin-striped progressive, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hands-worth (Mr. Lee), who is so obsessed with abolishing the House of Lords, might, feel he would make his points more forcibly by adopting some more trendy gear. I do not suppose the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) would be deterred by the media from continuing his

amiable gnawing at the roots of our society. But if he does so, I prefer that he should be seen.
When it comes to the Secretary of State for Industry, I do not suppose for one moment that the presence in this Chamber of the television cameras would stop him from his ambition of steadily taking over more and more of this country's industry. Indeed he might hope to be given a TV programme of his own. No doubt he would choose for its title the catchword by which he is becoming know, and dreaded throughout British industry—"Thanks for your Company". But at least we as a House would have an opportunity to change our ways. By so doing we would have the chance to achieve a greater effect.
Earlier my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) praised the Committee system which the House has recently evolved. Just after he said that this Parliament was a model for others, he went on to praise these Committees and to suggest that we should emulate the American system. With great respect, I believe that the Committees which were set up as the brainchild of Dick Crossman are a great snare and delusion to the House.
We have only to look at the long list of Members who serve on those Committees to realise how much the system must have detracted from the impact of the Chamber. Too many Members are preoccupied elsewhere in mini-parliaments of their own, and some may never come into the Chamber except when they are making their way back from the Division Lobby. The Committees are busy churning out reports which we in the House seldom, if ever, have time to debate—and when one of their reports is debated it seems that the only people who turn up to speak are those same Members who sat on the original Committee. It all reminds me of the White Russian community in Paris after the First World War, who made an uneasy living by taking in one another's washing. That is the fate which the House is in danger of having to face.
It is painfully true that debate in this Chamber has become a virtual formality. It is sometimes even argued that it would be much to our convenience, as well as saving a great deal of time, if we could


vote first and have the speeches afterwards for the benefit of any Members whose minds were not already made up. That would certainly enable the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice) to get home to his wife rather earlier, which would no doubt be a good thing for us all.
If we are to go that far in admitting the futility that threatens to overwhelm this House, surely we must do something to try to save it. I would bring in the television cameras and let them show us warts and all. I do not mind if the cameras focus on someone picking his nose. I am not particularly obsessed with anyone's ankles. I do not care whether those Front Bench feet on the table are in well-shod shoes. I do not see that the purpose of the television cameras would be to try and show us as being clever or good-looking. I think that the public have the right to see us as we are, and to see what we do.
If this place serves any purpose at all, it exists to defend the people against their Government. That is our essential purpose. The Government could go on without this place, but the people's rights will never be protected unless this place has some power and some purpose. We are not here to be actors or entertainers. We are sent here as defenders of the interests of the people, and to assert their will. I think that we should now make up our minds to do so in front of the critical gaze of their television cameras.

9.9 p.m.

Mrs. Millie Miller: I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), who said that newly-elected Members are more likely to support the idea of television, may well be right in the sense that many of us who have come in recently from outside take a different view and perhaps a less cynical view of the proceedings than he has taken. I feel that many Members have done their colleagues and the proceedings of the House far less than justice in this debate. The Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), strongly opposed the idea of bringing the television cameras into the Chamber. He gave a number of plausible reasons for taking that line.
But what hon. Members who have been here for many years tend to overlook is that, while they have been mulling over this subject, people outside the House have been deliberately disaffected with the system of Parliament itself, and there is much to be said for introducing the public to what actually happens here. I agree that we are not always on our best behaviour, but perhaps the coming of television might even improve our behaviour.
What it will not do is destroy the semblance of privacy. Hon. Members have talked about our privacy, but what exists in the Chamber is a semblance of privacy as we attempt to talk to each other or tell each other our views. It is important to refute the idea that the right of the people to hear and see our proceedings should be confined to the tiny handful able at any one time to get into the Gallery.
I speak with a certain small experience of allowing television cameras into a debating chamber, although a much smaller chamber. It was during the historic period a couple of years ago when the Conservative Housing Finance Act was being forced through the House. The local authority of which I was leader allowed cameras into the council chamber to televise our debates on the subject. This was unprecedented in local government and caused a great deal of heartsearching and debate among councillors, as this debate has among hon. Members this evening.
Exposing the local authority to the cameras revealed to the public as never before the deep sincerity of those taking part in that debate and the fact that they had thought about what they were saying, which does not always appear from the edited accounts in the Press of the proceedings of the House. Comments from all over the country applauded the opportunity to show councillors deeply involved in the current topic and giving it their earnest consideration before making up their minds.
We have moments in the House—and I have been privileged to witness them in the past few months—when Parliament reaches the peaks of oratory and idealism. We have other moments when it sinks to the depths. But in that it reflects the whole of human life. So every


opportunity should be given to show people just what happens in the House.
For example, I wish that it were possible for television cameras to be here not just at 10 o'clock, when we are debating the first subject, or at 11.30, when we are debating the second, but in the early hours of the morning, when a stalwart band of regular devotees of the problems of the EEC are in the Chamber night after night desperately trying to sort out the complexities of EEC legislation. The public would benefit from the opportunity of seeing that and knowing what hon. Members are up against when they try to expose these matters, because they are reported nowhere else.
This is a great opportunity. We have the chance to show the people the best we can offer. It may be imperfect, it may be that changes in our procedure could make it better, but let us show it, as has just been said, warts and all, and go back to our constituencies and let the people tell us whether they think it is a worthwhile experiment.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: I shall be brief, because I know that several of my hon. Friends still wish to speak, in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) who has sat through every speech and has a lot to contribute to the debate.
I find myself somewhere between the remarks made by the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mrs. Miller) and the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), with whom I have done battle on television many times. Although we have run through the gamut of all the arguments in the debate, I think that it would be a great mistake if we rushed too much.
I deplore the attitude of anybody wishing to go back to those days when strangers who had found their way into the House were held in custody by the Serjeant at Arms—I refer to the reign of James I—until they had sworn at the Bar not to disclose what they had heard within the Chamber.
I certainly associate myself with most of the remarks made in those great debates in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries when the admission of the Press was discussed with great fervour. It was

interesting to note, when looking up this matter, that in 1681 the only person to resist that proposal was Mr. Secretary Jenkins, who resisted on the ground that it was an appeal to the people unsuited to the gravity of the House. It will be interesting to see in which Lobby the Secretary with the same name votes tonight.
I take the view that it would be precipitate to give entry to the television cameras in the terms of the motion. I should not be opposed to allowing the television cameras into the Chamber for certain great occasions, for certain set pieces, as they have been called, or to having Prime Minister's Questions televised in their entirety twice weekly. However, I am extremely reluctant, not because of any distrust that I feel towards the media or those who control it, to allow an edited programme of parliamentary highlights. The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson), with whom perhaps I have little else in common, put the arguments extremely persuasively when he argued for caution against admitting television cameras in the terms of the motion.
Those of us who do not have a doctrinal objection to television in the Chamber are in a quandary which was highlighted by the interjection that I tried to make in the speech by the Leader of the House this afternoon. We have to vote either for or against something that is to be an edited broadcast. We cannot vote for what I and perhaps the hon. Member for Penistone might accept in certain circumstances: for example, a major debate on the Common Market—not the Budget Speech, which God forbid—in its entirety or the major speeches from both Front Bences. That would be fair enough.
I think that possibly the most sensible course for us to adopt is to vote for the first motion and against the second. There is a great deal to be said for the old motto, festina lente, and tonight for giving approval to the broadcasting by sound radio of our deliberations whether by continuous transmission or edited broadcasts. I should be prepared to countentance an experiment on those lines. But that will be for the Select Committee and those who have power over these matters to work out when the vote has been taken.
I sincerely hope that we will approve the first motion but not the second. We have debated this matter over many years. For us to rush into both at once would be a great mistake. Let us admit the microphones, which are not obtrusive,

Mr. Whitehead: The hon. Gentleman is misinformed. We are not rushing into the two at once. There has been an experiment with radio, and it is nine years since the Select Committee reported on televising our proceedings. We are not rushing into anything.

Mr. Cormack: I submit that we are if we approve both motions tonight, because the British public have not had the opportunity either to see a television or to hear a radio broadcast of our proceedings. What I am suggesting is that, following tonight's debate, we should have the microphones. The hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead), who is a most persuasive advocate, put the most damning argument of all against television cameras when he talked about the technical difficulties. I think that for the moment these are too considerable, and I suggest that we have the radio broadcasts. Within a year we shall have had plenty of opportunity to monitor the experiment and decide how it works. By then the cameras to which the hon. Member for Derby, North referred will be in production, and it may be appropriate, if we approve of the radio experiment, to allow in the television cameras. That is the way in which we should approach the matter. There has been a common thread running through all the speeches, and it has been in the best traditions of cross-party debate. We all have foremost in our minds a love of this place and a consideration of its procedures. We wish to see this place safeguarded. We wish it to be properly appreciated and regarded by our constituents throughout the country, and I urge caution. Let us make an experiment. Let us have the broadcasts, and let us wait upon the result of those broadcasts before we allow in the television cameras.

9.21 p.m.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Ever since I came to this House about 12 months ago—and even before then—I have been in favour of allowing television cameras

into the Chamber. It has not been an easy process to maintain that position. One can appreciate the view of those who have been drawn into life here and are frightened of any changes. It must not be thought that because I take the view that I do I have maintained it in an uninformed and unquestioning way. During the 12 months that I have been a Member I have raised a number of questions about whether it would be wise to allow the television cameras to come in, but I have nevertheless maintained a fairly consistent position throughout.
When I was an ordinary member of the public I recognised as a common attitude the disenchantment which many people have for Members of Parliament. If any hon. Members think that they command universal respect, I must tell them that they would have been disenchanted if they had attended some of the meetings at which I have been present. Far too frequently people feel that we are isolated and remote from the mass of everyday life. When they find, for example, that Members of Parliament are able to be isolated from the media and at the same time pluck lush political pickings from the various board rooms, they say it is simply a gentlemen's club, that it has nothing to do with the mainspring of political life and that it is merely a comfortable comatose existence. We shall not change that opinion by keeping out the television cameras and protesting loudly when, on the odd ceremonial occasion, they are brought in for a ceremony which is amongst the most meaningless of any that one finds in the House.
The most meaningful discussions take place when we are exchanging ideas and when there is a clash of opinion. Sometimes there is not a clash, and sometimes the debates are boring, but life is like that. It is sometimes dull and sometimes boring. But there are occasions, when the House is discussing matters of great moment, when our proceedings are followed avidly by virtually the whole of the nation and when we ought to be informing people outside as fully as we can of what we are doing. During those moments—alas, all too infrequent—matters of great conflict arise.
After the Birmingham bombing we passed the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act. Our proceedings


were followed by nearly the whole nation. People were deeply concerned about what we were going to do, yet we slipped a Bill through while most Members were dozing on the settees and couches in the House. [Interruption.] I said most Members, and that is accurate, because not more than 300 Members were present in the Chamber during the night. We passed a Bill which eroded the Habeas Corpus Act 1679, a basic pillar of British freedom. That measure was passed virtually without a murmur. I know that there were special circumstances. However, we want the people outside to understand and appreciate those special circumstances and considerations which persuaded the House to take that decision. The televising of our proceedings will raise the standard of understanding and appreciation.
I do not think that there is any impetus for change in this place. It will come from outside, since great impetus for change always comes from outside. People were worried about the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974 and about the erosion of civil liberties. Many people said "What will you do about the people who explode bombs?" Many Members of Parliament said "We shall pass the Act". Many factors produce change. If there is to be an impetus for change for the benefit of democratic procedures, our proceedings must be televised.
It would be enlightening to see how many decisions are made by the Government without parliamentary debate. I should like more decisions to be taken inside the Chamber, away from the office tower blocks and the influence of the permanent Civil Service. I do not think that there is an understanding of the way in which the Government are isolated from the majority party, let alone Parliament. That situation will continue until we raise the level of understanding of what happens in Parliament. We shall not raise that level of understanding until we use modern methods of communication.
The question of Committees causes concern. Many hon. Members spend a great deal of time beavering away in Committees. Members of Parliament cannot always be in the Chamber. They must judge which is more important. I

see no reason why the Committees cannot be televised, since Select Committees and Standing Committees do important work.
The televising of the proceedings of committees in the United States of America has helped to expose the position of the American Government vis-à-vis the war in Vietnam. The Senate committee hearings revealed the breadth and depth of United States Government involvement in a way in which the newspapers failed to do. It led to a revulsion and a movement by the American people to quit Vietnam. The proceedings which led to the exposure of Watergate were immeasurably helped by exposure on television. Similarly, we shall not experience the impetus for change until we provide the people with information.

Mr. Peter Morrison: The hon. Gentleman has spoken about Watergate and the Press exposure of the situation. However, Senate and Congress proceedings are not televised.

Mr. Cryer: I do not agree. Of course the proceedings of the Senate are not televised, but the proceedings of the committee which received evidence during the Watergate hearings were televised. That helped to spread the growth of understanding of the enormity of the Watergate affair.
The American Press, which in some respects has a more creditable record than the British Press, was initially responsible for exposing Watergate. However, televising the proceedings helped to expose the involvement of the American Government in the dreadful Vietnam war.
Once the televising of proceedings in the Chamber has started, the system can be extended into Committee work. The presence of television cameras might help to persuade a number of Members of Parliament to attend more regularly. The attendance—or non-attendance—of some Members of Parliament is nothing less than a disgrace. If hon. Members have to come here because they fear that their constituents will want to see them, what is wrong with that? Factory workers cannot take two or three days off to go to a board meeting or attend the courts. They must work at their job or they are sacked. If television influences Members to come here, the public will think that that is a good thing and I entirely agree.
Editing is a crucial matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), who was now left the Chamber, trivialised the debate. Of course, some journalists specialise in making trivia sound important, but many others have a great concern for political matters. A number of great newspapers provide information of a consistently high standard. Surely we expect television journalists to show a responsible attitude. We must trust them to some degree.
We should go forward with this experiment. I hope that it will be the impetus for change and that by adopting it Parliament will increase its powers and remain the centre for democratic progress in this country.

9.31 p.m.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: This is the best sort of debate because we do not all come here to fire on fixed lines. Some hon. Members may even have come here to listen rather than to speak. Some of us have done a good deal of listening today.
I am impressed by the sweep of arguments for bringing in television cameras, although I disagreed with many of the examples given by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer). However, there is a risk these days, when television does so much opinion-forming, that Parliament is thought of as out of date. We are sometimes accused of being like an old rusty locomotive shunted motionless on to a siding while the express trains of opinion-forming rush up and down the main line in the shape of programmes like "Panorama". That programme probably influenced many millions tonight, and I am not sure that our debates do influence many people.
Nevertheless, while paying credit to those arguments, I would say that there is a much stronger argument against bringing in the cameras which has not been raised yet. If democracy means anything—that is an "if" that we cannot debate now—it means that the man in the pub has a commonsense argument which, thank God, is not fixed on party lines. If one goes into a public bar and asks the man holding a pint what he thinks about anything, one will get a direct and forthright reply, but not on party lines.
We in this Chamber polarise views on the problems of the nation to get a decision by means of a vote. It will be a bad day for Britain if we feed out discussion on those problems polarised on party lines. It will create divisiveness, which is the last thing the nation needs. So I say firmly "No" to television, except for occasional events, rather like an outside broadcast of the Boat Race.
Finally, it may be quite illogical for me to say so, but I do not hold the same objections to ordinary steam radio, because "Today in Parliament" is a good programme and a sufficient programme. There is much more flexibility about radio, which can cover the whole work of Parliament, the Committees, the House of Lords, and so on, and that would not suffer from the same objections as television.

9.35 p.m.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: I have listened to the greater part of the debate. I have a particular interest in it because I was employed in broadcasting for a considerable number of years. However, having listened to the debate, I must say that I have not heard anyone deny the fundamental principle to which I referred in an earlier intervention during the speech of the Father of the House—the principle being that already in the Strangers' Gallery there is embodied the right of the public to see and hear what goes on in this Chamber.
What we are proposing in these two motions is simply an extension of that principle—the right of the public to see and hear what is going on here. That principle has not been denied at all during the debate. I challenge any hon. Member, even at this late hour, to deny that right on the part of the public.

Mr. Strauss: I can answer that in a sentence. The public has a right to go to the law courts and listen to proceedings there, to hear a murder trial, and SO on. But it does not follow that it is a good thing to televise the trials held in the courts and give them to the whole of the public on the television screen.

Mr. Roberts: The right hon. Gentleman still has not, therefore, denied the right to the public. As I say, what we are proposing is simply an extension of that right.
From listening to the debate, it seems that the House is afraid of basically two things. It is afraid of the effect of radio and television equipment upon the proceedings of the House and, indeed, on the performance of hon. Members. It is also afraid that hon. Members themselves—their words and actions—will become puppets in the hands of those who edit the programmes to be transmitted.
What all this amounts to is this. What we are afraid of is domination by the media. It is my view that we should resist this threat of domination, and the way to do that, surely, is for the House to take every possible precaution against becoming dominated by the media.
I personally do not see a threat in these two motions, which are, after all, only to enable experiments to be carried out in the House. Those who have said that if these experiments are allowed this will mean that we grant the right to broadcast in perpetuity are surely wrong, because we have had a radio experiment previously and that was discontinued, or at least, nothing came of it.

Mr. David Steel: That radio experiment was never broadcast. That is the difference. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support a radio experiment broadcast tonight.

Mr. Roberts: But it was an experiment on closed circuit and, nevertheless, just an experiment—as is the one we are proposing tonight.
Personally, I should like to see not only these experiments which are now proposed but also the televising of the proceedings of the House on a fourth channel. I believe very strongly that when a Prime Minister or a leading Government spokesman opens a debate in this Chamber and sees fit to talk for half an hour, and when the Leader of the Opposition or a leading Opposition spokesman sees fit to reply for a further half an hour, the people of this country are entitled to see and hear those two speeches and a balanced report of the rest of the debate.
We greatly underestimate the amount of interest that there is in politics. We may be sure that if we do not satisfy the existing interest in politics by supplying material for television there are others

outside the House who will meet that demand.

9.40 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Privy Council Office (Mr. William Price): It was a pleasure to give up part of my time to the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts), because he knows as much about the televising of proceedings of all sorts as anyone in the House. His was one of a number of interesting contributions.
This has been a debate which has followed closely the pattern of previous discussions, which indicates that many of the views expressed in the past, including the objections, are still strongly held by some hon. Members. I do not think it has been any worse a debate for that.
As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said, the Government take a neutral view. They believe that this is a matter which can be resolved only by a free vote; and I doubt whether anyone would argue with that.
Perhaps I should mention my own position. I have not voted in previous Divisions on this issue. I can claim, therefore, not to be a hard-liner on either side. There are clearly powerful arguments sincerely held for and against either television or radio broadcasting; and we have heard many of them today.
I believe from having listened to most of the debate that there are five crucial areas for discussion, and I suspect that if we were satisfied on all counts that the answer was "Yes" the House would probably vote in favour of at least an experiment. However, I for one recognise that it is not as simple as that.
First, would the broadcasting of our proceedings lead to the more open government which successive administrations have promised, and, secondly, would it create for Parliament and Members a greater understanding of our work and our problems from which we hope would follow an improvement in public attitudes? I believe that the answer to the first question is "Yes", but I declare an interest. I am by trade a newspaper man and my case quite simply is that the less people know and see the more suspicious and distrustful they are likely to become.
The second question is impossible to answer with any certainty. There are those who argue that the answer would be "Yes" if we had some form of editorial control over the programmes to be transmitted. We have heard that argument today, too. I believe that to be both difficult and dangerous, and I agree with the hon. Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan) that it would almost certainly be unacceptable either to the BBC or to the ITV and, whether we like it or not, that is the situation that we are in.
We have to face the fact that rows in this Chamber make good television, that bad behaviour will not be suppressed to save us embarrassment. Anyone who imagines that the assault by Miss Devlin upon the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) would not have appeared on television is being quite unrealistic. It would have been shown time and time again and we should have had to accept the consequences. The whole world knew about it and many other incidents, anyway. Our friends in the Press Gallery would ensure that.
The question we have to ask is whether television would be even more damaging than the written word, and, if so, whether we are prepared as a House to pay that price.
What some of us believe to be a far more serious fear is the reaction of our constituents to the paucity of Members during important debates. This aspect has been touched on by one speaker after another. Can we explain to their satisfaction the wide open spaces on the Front Benches as well as in the rest of the Chamber? Can we be reasonably certain that coverage would be fair, balanced and objective?
I am impressed by the argument that we really have no right to make any allegation of bias until we have tried broadcasting and produced valid causes for complaint. Hon. Members quoted "Today in Parliament" as an example of objectivity, and the BBC is proud of the fact that it produced very few complaints. I have heard it suggested that the reason it produced few complaints is that there are no listeners to the programme. I do not know whether that is so or not, but whenever I have heard the programme I have been impressed with its balance, and I find

it difficult to believe that what is possible to achieve on radio is not equally possible on television as well.
Thirdly, would not the British public through the radio and television obtain a more balanced and objective view of Parliament, of politicians and of the political parties if they did not have to rely on the Press Gallery for their information? Would they be better informed as a result? I believe the answer is "Yes". At the moment we have a mixture of fanciful and often fictional sketch writing in some newspapers and an almost total lack of interest in our proceedings in others. There were four journalists present in the debate on the NUJ and Industrial Relations Bill, a matter which, according to their editors, constituted the most serious attack ever mounted upon Fleet Street.
Fourthly, was Robin Day correct when he wrote many years ago:
By permitting the entry of television, Parliament would ensure that this competent magnifier of reputations is not monopolised by quiz panellists, announcers, commentators, university dons and politicians who have failed to be elected"?
He wrote as one of the latter category.
There are those who believe that the television companies have a small circle of instant pundits, experts on any and every subject, and that if you belong to that magical group you get more invitations than you can manage. If you do not, you can give up any hope at all of "Mid-Week", "Nationwide", News at Ten or even James Young Esquire.
Would television and radio give greater opportunities to all of us in this House? Would it be possible for those who are not the darlings of the BBC and ITV producers, but no less capable for all that, to get a look in occasionally, or are we to have our politics by the men of the media?
Finally, what would be the degree of inconvenience to which Members would be subjected, and how would the nature of the Chamber be affected? This is a matter which rightly affects us all. The technical advice available to me suggests that it is not likely that replacement of the existing microphones will be necessary in a short-term experiment, although one additional central microphone may be required. A sound mixing booth and a small presenter's booth with a view of


the Chamber may also be necessary, possibly under the Gallery. Alternatively, the presenter might be accommodated in an adjoining room, using monitors as with the State Opening of Parliament. ITV will require a hut about 20 ft. by 15 ft. to house its control gear, but this can be erected in the Commons Court. Preliminary views are that five cameras would be adequate for an experiment. Siting could be discussed with the Services Committee. First thoughts are that two could be bolted to the underside of the Gallery, in the corners behind Mr. Speaker, and remotely controlled. A one-man camera could be situated by the visitors' seat under the Gallery and two in the Gallery.
In view of the development of more sensitive cameras, there is not likely to be an appreciable increase in lighting in the Chamber above the existing level. It will, however, be necessary to make some small modifications to the character of the lighting under the Gallery. These are serious questions to which there are no ready answers. There are other matters which clearly cannot be decided tonight. But they must be stated and, if there is to be an experiment, considered by the Services Committee at a later date.
One matter is of some importance. So far the decision on broadcasting has, rightly, rested with Members of Parliament. What would happen if we approved broadcasting and the authorities produced the sort of viewing figures which might persuade them not to wish to continue? None of us, I suspect, imagines that we will put "Coronation Street" or "Crossroads" out of the top ten.

Mr. Cormack: Or "Dad's Army".

Mr. Price: Or "Dad's Army". Some hon. Members go further and wonder whether there is any demand at all. I have not had a single letter on this subject since I came to this House nine years ago.
What is to be the position of newspapers in relation to television? I must tell the House that the Press Association feels strongly that it should be allowed to take still photographs. It will not be content to obtain them from television screens. Neither, I suspect, would individual newspapers. This will create a real problem.

Mr. English: Would my hon. Friend agree that there would be no objection if their cameras were more silent than they have been on previous occasions?

Mr. John Mendelson: How does my hon. Friend know there would be no objection?

Mr. Price: With the equipment that is available today, I would think that the cameras would be completely silent. May I ask the House this. Shall we be prepared to allow many debates to be televised live? Is there really a demand for a two-hour, largely technical Budget debate? Would my wife, for one, prefer the Chancellor of the Exchequer to Ena Sharples? [An HON. MEMBER: "I hope so."] She can speak for herself. Should we permit "News at Ten" to switch live to this Chamber for the result of critical Divisions at around 10.15 p.m.? It is difficult to imagine more dramatic television than that. I hope that the House will agree to any request that is made, as I am sure it will.
Let me turn to the points raised by the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), particularly about the need to reawaken interest in Parliament and its vital rôle within our democracy. I agree with him about that. If he is saying that there is a wide credibility gap between the electors and their representatives, I am sure that his case is a powerful one. If he and I are right, it might be argued that almost anything is worth trying. The right hon. Gentleman was critical of any suggestion that we should inflict continuous parliamentary proceedings upon the British people. I am sure he is correct about that. It is bad enough on occasions for ourselves. It would be quite impossible for our constituents, and no one as far as I know regards that as a serious proposition.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: In connection with the credibility gap, as the Minister calls it, may I ask whether he has studied the Granada Television research which showed that the vast majority of constituents, without regard to party, had a great deal of confidence in their Members of Parliament?

Mr. Price: Yes, I think that is true. Seeing them might help in that process. What was worrying was their attitude


not to individual Members but to this institution as a whole. I may be wrong, but that was what I understood the right hon. Gentleman to be saying.
I have tried to bring together what I see as some of the major issues. Neither my right hon. Friend nor I claim to have ready answers to any or all of them. We have our own views, but we seeek to inflict them upon no one. For my part, I believe that some of the fears expressed may be found to be justified, and if I had to vote tonight for broadcasting for the next 25 years I might well abstain, as I have done in the past.
To my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead), whose amendment was not selected and who wants a parliamentary broadcasting unit, I can only say that it is our view that that would hardly be appropriate for a three-week experiment, but if he is talking about the mechanics of the operation this is a matter which could be looked at if broadcasting became permanent.

Mr. Whitehead: Will my hon. Friend undertake to look again at the duration of the experiment if the motion is passed? Many of us feel that three weeks is simply not long enough to do more than prove the technical feasibility of the experiment, not how much it would affect our proceedings in the House.

Mr. Price: The difficulty is that this is all that the authorities have agreed to do. There is considerable expense involved, and it means tying up extremely experienced staff. There are problems in that context.
Several hon. Members have argued that once we have the cameras in the Chamber we shall never get them out. The case was argued powerfully by two right hon. Gentlemen, the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), one in favour of broadcasting and the other against. But where is the evidence? What is known is that in no country in which broadcasting has been introduced into Parliament—there are now 21 such countries—has it subsequently been withdrawn. That might or might not happen here. But no one will convince me that a Parliament which

takes the view that it can remove Britain from the Common Market could not get rid of five cameras if it chose to do so.
It could be argued that the best way to deal with this matter would be for both sides to put their case to the test. If the House votes for an experiment that is what it will be doing, and when the time comes to do so it will be better equipped to make the right long-term decision.

9.59 p.m.

Mr. James Wellbeloved: In the few moments remaining, I wish to say how disappointed I am that neither the Lord President nor my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary gave any indication of cost, and this at a time when the Government are appealing for reductions in public expenditure and the BBC is pleading poverty and threatening the public with the removal of many desirable programmes.
I am appalled that the Government and the BBC together are putting forward a proposition which can result only in substantial expenditure, if the figures I have are accurate, as I believe them to be. I understand that the capital expenditure to install the equipment will be about £250,000, and the annual running cost, if the experiment were to be carried over into a long-term system for televising the House, would be over £1 million. In my view, that is a scandalous proposition at this time.
My hon. Friend said—this was his fourth point—that at present few Members have an opportunity to appear on all the wonderful programmes which go out because they are not in the orbit—

Mr. Walter Harrison (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household): rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly.

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since this motion involves expenditure by the House of Commons, has Her Majesty conveyed her consent to the passage of the motion?

Mr. Speaker: I understand that thatis not necessary.

The Housing having divided: Ayes 354, Noes 182.

Division No. 101.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Aitken, Jonathan
Deakins, Eric
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N)


Allaun, Frank
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Hunt, John


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Hurd Douglas


Anderson, Donald
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartlord)


Archer, Peter
Dempsey, James
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)


Ashley, Jack
Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)


Ashton, Joe
Dormand, J. D.
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Atkinson, Norman
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)


Awdry, Daniel
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Baker, Kenneth
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)


Banks, Robert
Durant, Tony
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Dykes, Hugh
Jopling, Michael


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel
Eadle, Alex
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Bates, Alf
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Kaufman, Gerald


Bean, R. E.
Edge, Geoff
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Beith, A. J.
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Kinnock, Neil


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Lambie, David


Berry, Hon Anthony
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Lamont, Norman


Bidwell, Sydney
Emery, Peter
Lane, David


Bishop, E. S.
English, Michael
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)


Blaker, Peter
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Latham, Michael (Melton)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Evans John (Newton)
Lawson, Nigel


Body, Richard
Eyre, Reginold
Le Marchant, Spencer


Booth, Albert
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Farr, John
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Flannery, Martin
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Brittan, Leon
Fletcher Alex (Edinburgh N)
Lipton, Marcus


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lloyd, Ian


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lomas, Kenneth


Bryan, Sir Paul
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Luard, Evan


Buchan, Norman
Fookes, Miss Janet
Luce, Richard


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)


Buck, Antony
Ford, Ben
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson


Budgen, Nick
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
McCrindle, Robert


Bulmer, Esmond
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
McElhone, Frank


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Fox, Marcus
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
MacGregor, John


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Freeson, Reginald
Mackenzie, Gregor


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Freud Clement
Mackintosh, John P.


Canavan, Dennis
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Maclennan, Robert


Carlisle, Mark
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)


Carmichael, Neil
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Carr, Rt Hon Robert
George, Bruce
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Carter, Ray
Golding, John
Madden, Max


Cartwright, John
Goodhart, Philip
Magee, Bryan


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Gorst, John
Marks, Kenneth


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Gould, Bryan
Marquand, David


Churchill, W. S.
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Graham, Ted
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Clegg, Walter
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Mates, Michael


Clemitson, Ivor
Griffiths, Eldon
Mayhew, Patrick


Coleman, Donald
Grocott, Bruce
Meacher, Michael


Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen
Grylis, Michael
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Hamling, William
Mikardo, Ian


Corbett, Robin
Hampton Dr Keith
Millan, Bruce


Cormack, Patrick
Hannam, John
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Corrie, John
Hardy, Peter
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)


Costain, A. P.
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Mills, Peter


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Hatton, Frank
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Havers, Sir Michael
Molloy, William


Crawshaw, Richard
Hayhoe, Barney
Montgomery, Fergus


Critchley, Julian
Hayman Mrs Helene
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Crouch, David
Heffer, Eric S.
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral


Cryer, Bob
Heseltine, Michael
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Hicks, Robert
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Hooley, Frank
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)


Dalyell, Tam
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Davidson, Arthur
Howell David (Guildford)
Moyle, Roland


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Huckfield, Les
Neave, Airey




Nelson, Anthony
Rose, Paul B.
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Newens, Stanley
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Newton, Tony
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilm'nock)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Noble, Mike
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Nott, John
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


O'Halloran, Michael
Rowlands, Ted
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Onslow, Cranley
Sainsbury, Tim
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Ovenden, John
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Tierney, Sydney


Owen, Dr David
Sandelson, Neville
Tomlinson, John


Page, John (Harrow West)
Scott, Nicholas
Torney, Tom


Palmer, Arthur
Sedgemore, Brian
Townsend, Cyril D.


Pardoe, John
Selby, Harry
Trotter, Neville


Park, George
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Parker, John
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Parry, Robert
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Pattie, Geoffrey
Shelton, William (Streatham)
Viggers, Peter


Pendry, Tom
Shepherd, Colin
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Penhaligon, David
Shersby, Michael
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Peyton, Rt Hon John
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Prescott, John
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Price C. (Lewisham W)
Silvester, Fred
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Price, William (Rugby)
Sims, Roger
Ward, Michael


Prior, Rt Hon James
Skinner, Dennis
Watkinson, John


Radice, Giles
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Watt, Hamish


Raison, Timothy
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Weatherill, Bernard


Reid, George
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Weetch, Ken


Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Snape, Peter
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Speed, Keith
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Richardson, Miss Jo
Spence, John
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)


Ridsdale, Julian
Sproat, Iain
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Rifkind, Malcolm
Stallard, A. W.
Winterton, Nicholas


Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Stanley, John
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Steel, David (Roxbursh)
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Fteen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Stott, Roger
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Rooker, J. W.
Strang, Gavin
Mr. Tim Rathbone and


Roper, John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Mr. Phillip Whitehead.



NOES


Abse, Leo
Edelman, Maurice
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Elliott, Sir William
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Janner, Greville


Bell, Ronald
Fairgrieve, Russell
Jeger, Mrs Lena


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Faulds, Andrew
Jessel, Toby


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Fell, Anthony
John, Brynmor


Benyon, W.
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Biffen, John
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)


Biggs-Davison, John
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Boardman, H.
Forrester, John
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fry, Peter
Judd, Frank


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Kaberry Sir Donald


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Gilbert, Dr John
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Kelley, Richard


Bradley, Tom
Ginsburg, David
Kershaw, Anthony


Brotherton, Michael
Glyn Dr Alan
Kimball, Marcus


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Goodhew, Victor
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Goodlad, Alastair
Lamborn, Harry


Buchanan, Richard
Gourlay, Harry
Lamond, James


Burden, F. A.
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Campbell, Ian
Gray, Hamish
Lawrence, Ivan


Cant, R. B.
Grieve, Percy
Leadbitter, Ted


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Grist, Ian
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Channon, Paul
Hall, Sir John
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
McCartney, Hugh


Cockcroft, John
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Macfarlane, Neil


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Harper, Joseph
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Cohen, Stanley
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Conlan, Bernard
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mahon, Simon


Cordle, John H.
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Marten, Neil


Cronin, John
Hastings, Stephen
Mather, Carol


Crowder, F. P.
Higgins, Terence L.
Maude, Angus


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Holland, Philip
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Horam, John
Mawby, Ray


Deiargy, Hugh
Hordern, Peter
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Doig, Peter
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Mendelson, John


Drayson, Burnaby
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Dunn, James A.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)


Junnett, Jack
Hunter, Adam
Moate, Roger







Molyneaux, James
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Thompson, George


Monro, Hector
Royle, Sir Anthony
Tinn, James


Moonman, Eric
Ryman, John
Tomney, Frank


Morgan, Geraint
Scott-Hopkins, James
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Silverman, Julius
Wakeham, John


Mudd, David
Sinclair, Sir George
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Neubert, Michael
Skeet, T. H. H.
Wall, Patrick


Normanton, Tom
Small, William
Warren, Kenneth


Ogden, Eric
Spearing, Nigel
Weitzman, David


O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian
Spriggs, Leslie
Wellbeloved, James


Orbach, Maurice
Stainton, Keith
Wells, John


Osborn, John
Stanbrook, Ivor
White, James (Pollok)


Padley, Walter
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Whitlock, William


Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Stoddart, David
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Pavitt, Laurie
Stradling Thomas, J.
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Peart, Rt Hon Fred
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Percival, Ian
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Woodall, Alec


Pink, R. Bonner
Swain, Thomas
Woof, Robert


Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Tapsell, Peter
Younger, Hon George


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)



Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Tebbit, Norman
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Mr. John Stokes and


Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
Dr. Colin Phipps.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House authorises an experiment in the public sound broadcasting of its proceedings, to be held in accordance with conditions approved by the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services).

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the consideration of Lords Amendments to the Housing Rents and Subsidies Bill may be proceeded with at this day's sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Edward Short.]

PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSE (BROADCASTING)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order this day,
That this House authorises an experiment in the public broadcasting of its proceedings by television, to be held in accordance with conditions approved by the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services).—[Mr. Edward Short.]

The House divided: Ayes 263, Noes 275.

Division No. 102.]
AYES
[10.15 p.m.


Aitken, Jonathan
Carr, Rt Hon Robert
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)


Allaun, Frank
Carter, Ray
English, Michael


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Cartwright, John
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)


Archer, Peter
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Eyre, Reginald


Armstrong, Ernest
Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Farr, John


Ashley, Jack
Churchill, W. S.
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Flannery, Martin


Atkinson, Norman
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)


Awdry, Daniel
Clegg, Walter
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)


Baker, Kenneth
Clemitson, Ivor
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Fookes, Miss Janet


Bates, Alf
Corbett, Robin
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Bean, R. E.
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)


Beith, A. J.
Critchley, Julian
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Fox, Marcus


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Crouch, David
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Cryer, Bob
Freud, Clement


Bidwell, Sydney
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Gardner, George (Reigate)


Blaker, Peter
Dalyell, Tam
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Davidson, Arthur
George, Bruce


Body, Richard
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Golding, John


Booth, Albert
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Gorst, John


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Deakins, Eric
Gould, Bryan


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Graham, Ted


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Dempsey, James
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Buchan, Norman
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Hamling, William


Buck, Antony
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hampson, Dr Keith


Budgen, Nick
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Hannam, John


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Durant, Tony
Hatton, Frank


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Havers, Sir Michael


Canavan, Dennis
Edge, Geoff
Hayhoe, Barney


Carlisle, Mark
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Hayman, Mrs Helene


Carmichael, Neil
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis




Heffer, Eric S.
Molloy, William
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Heseltine, Michael
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)


Hooley, Frank
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Howell, David (Guildford)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Sims, Roger


Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Moyle, Roland
Skinner, Dennis


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Huckfield, Les
Neave, Airey
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N)
Nelson, Anthony
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Hurd, Douglas
Newens, Stanley
Speed, Keith


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Newton, Tony
Sproat, Iain


Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Noble, Mike
Stallard, A. W.


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
O'Halloran, Michael
Stanley, John


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Onslow, Cranley
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)
Ovenden, John
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Owen, Dr David
Stott, Roger


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Palmer, Arthur
Strang, Gavin


Kaufman, Gerald
Pardoe, John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Park, George
Temple-Morris, Peter


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Parker, John
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Kinnock, Neil
Parry, Robert
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Lambie, David
Pattie, Geoffrey
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Lamont, Norman
Penhaligon, David
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Lane, David
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Tierney, Sydney


Lawson, Nigel
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Tomlinson, John


Le Marchant, Spencer
Prescott, John
Torney, Tom


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Price, William (Rugby)
Townsend, Cyril D.



Prior, Rt Hon James
Tugendhat, Christopher


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Radice, Giles
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Raison, Timothy
Viggers, Peter


Luard, Evan
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Luce, Richard
Reid, George
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Richardson, Miss Jo
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


McCrindle, Robert
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Watkinson, John


Mackenzie, Gregor
Ridsdale, Julian
Weatherill, Bernard


Mackintosh, John P.
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Weetch, Ken


Maclennan, Robert
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Madden, Max
Rooker, J. W.
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Magee, Bryan
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)


Marks, Kenneth

Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Winterton, Nicholas


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Mates, Michael
Rowlands, Ted
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Mayhew, Patrick
Sainsbury, Tim
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Meacher, Michael
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Young, David (Bolton E)


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Sandelson, Neville
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Scott, Nicholas



Mikardo, Ian
Sedgemore, Brian
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Millan, Bruce
Selby, Harry
Mr. Tim Rathbone and


Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Mr. Phillip Whitehead.


Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)





NOES


Abse, Leo
Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund


Adley, Robert
Burden, F. A.
Doig, Peter


Anderson, Donald
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Dormand, J. D.


Ashton, Joe
Campbell, Ian
Drayson, Burnaby


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Cant, R. B.
Dunn, James A.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Dunnett, Jack


Banks, Robert
Channon, Paul
Dykes, Hugh


Bell, Ronald
Clark, William (Croydon S)
Eadie, Alex


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Cockcroft, John
Edelman, Maurice


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke}


Benyon, W.
Cohen, Stanley
Elliott, Sir William


Biffen, John
Coleman, Donald
Emery, Peter


Biggs-Davison, John
Conlan, Bernard
Evans, John (Newton)


Bishop, E. S.
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)


Boardman, H.
Cormack, Patrick
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Corrie, John
Fairgrieve, Russell


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Costain, A. P.
Faulds, Andrew


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Fell, Anthony


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Crawshaw, Richard
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Cronin, John
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Bradley, Tom
Crowder, F. P.
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Brittan, Leon
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Ford, Ben


Brotherton, Michael
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Forrester, John


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Freeson, Reginald


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Fry, Peter


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Buchanan, Richard
Delargy, Hugh
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)







Gilbert, Dr John
Lawrence, Ivan
Rose, Paul B.


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Leadbitter, Ted
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilm'nock)


Ginsburg, David
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Lipton, Marcus
Royle, Sir Anthony


Goodhart, Philip
Lloyd, Ian
Ryman, John


Goodhew, Victor
Lomas, Kenneth
Scott-Hopkins, James


Goodlad, Alastair
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Gourlay, Harry
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Shepherd, Colin


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
McCartney, Hugh
Shersby, Michael


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
McElhone, Frank
Silverman, Julius


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Macfarlane, Neil
Silvester, Fred


Gray, Hamish
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Sinclair, Sir George


Grieve, Percy
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Griffiths, Eldon
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Small, William


Grist, Ian
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Snape, Peter


Grocott, Bruce
Mahon, Simon
Spearing, Nigel


Grylls, Michael
Marquand, David
Spence, John


Hall, Sir John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Marten, Neil
Spriggs, Leslie


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mather, Carol
Stainton, Keith


Hardy, Peter
Maude, Angus
Stanbrook, Ivor


Harper, Joseph
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mawby, Ray
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Harrison, Waller (Wakefield)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Mendelson, John
Stoddart, David


Hastings, Stephen
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Stokes, John


Hicks, Robert
Mills, Peter
Stradling Thomas, J.


Higgins, Terence L.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Holland, Philip
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Horam, John
Moate, Roger
Swain, Thomas


Hordern, Peter
Molyneaux, James
Tapsell, Peter


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Monro, Hector
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Montgomery, Fergus
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Moonman, Eric
Tebbit, Norman


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Hunt, John
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Hunter, Adam
Morgan, Geraint
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Thompson, George


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Mudd, David
Tinn, James


James, David
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Tomney, Frank


Janner, Greville
Neubert, Michael
Trotter, Neville


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Normanton, Tom
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Jeger, Mrs Lena
Nott, John
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Ogden, Eric
Wakeham, John


Jessel, Toby
O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


John, Brynmor
Orbach, Maurice
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Osborn, John
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Padley, Walter
Wall, Patrick


Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Page, John (Harrow West)
Ward, Michael


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Warren, Kenneth


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pavitt, Laurie
Watt, Hamish


Jopling, Michael
Peart, Rt Hon Fred
Weitzman, David


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Pendry, Tom
Wellbeloved, James


Judd, Frank
Percival, Ian
Wells, John


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Pink, R. Bonner
White, James (Pollok)




Whitlock, William


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Kelley, Richard
Price C. (Lewisham W)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Kershaw, Anthony
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Kimball, Marcus
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Woodall, Alec


King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Woof, Robert


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rifkind, Malcolm
Younger, Hon George


Lamborn, Harry
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)



Lamond, James
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles and


Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Dr. Colin Phipps.


Latham, Michael (Melton)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING RENTS AND SUBSIDIES BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 1

RENTS FOR PUBLIC SECTOR DWELLINGS

Lords Amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 3, leave out from "circumstances" to end of line 5.

10.28 p.m.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Reginald Freeson): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is one of a small number of amendments which raise a point of principle. As the Bill left this House it included at the end of Clause 1(3) the words:
but save as aforesaid they shall not make provision for a surplus in that account.
Those words related to the rule which was being laid down in the Bill regarding the making of reasonable rents by local authorities: the new proposals provided for the return of freedom for local authorities in the fixing of rents compared with the rules laid down in the Housing Finance Act 1972. The words, which were deleted in another place, carried into effect what may be described as the no-profit rule. Their effect was that local authorities were forbidden to budget for a profit out of their housing. The qualification in the words "as aforesaid" simply allowed local authorities, if they wished, to budget for a reasonable working balance.
10.30 p.m.
Such a working balance is regarded by many authorities, although not all, as a useful management tool. The Government do not wish to impede local authorities in their choice whether to have one or not. If an authority provides for a working balance, it may in inflationary times wish to increase it. Provided the increased balance would still be reason-

able, the words deleted, which we wish to restore, allow them to do so. This would not, of course, be making a profit and we do not wish to stop it.
Once the authority begins to budget for a surplus larger than a reasonable working balance, it has begun to make such a profit. The Labour Party manifesto, published twice last year, pledged that local authorities were to be given the right to fix rents which do not make a profit out of their tenants. This is, of course, a right for tenants, and can be made effective only by a provision which effectively stops local authorities from "making provision"—that is, budgeting to make such a profit.
It may be argued that as the law stands in relation to housing accounts a surplus cannot be disposed of out of the account, and that there is no harm done if an authority builds up a surplus out of its present rents and rates to finance future housing activity. This seems a harmless argument, but it is one that cannot be accepted in the context of the Bill.
I should make it clear that the no-profit principle does not prevent an authority from building up a reasonable balance to contribute to future maintenance, repairs, and so on. That is one of the proper uses of a working balance, which is allowed. Nor does the "No-profit" rule place a local authority in an impossible straitjacket for budgeting purposes. We appreciate that in framing a local authority budget, the income and expenditure for the year can rarely be estimated precisely in advance. Houses may be completed sooner or later than expected and the rate of interest may also vary. In present circumstances, what is most likely to happen is an adjustment in the size or timing of the next rent review. An increase may be postponed if the HRA can do without it, just as it would take place if the extra income became necessary.
It could be argued pointedly that the possibility of profit at the present time is so unreal for local authorities that it is superfluous to forbid it. But the Bill sets up a system which will last for several years, during which there could well be authorities whose finances would allow them to move towards profit. An authority which reduces its rate of


building for a few years will find its loan charges shrinking in real terms. If its rents continued to rise it could in a few years see a profit on the horizon, if not nearer.
Such an authority would, we hope, reassess its housing position, and in order to more effectively cope with problems previously not fully tackled it might look to the quality of its environment and management to see how they could be improved; it could look to the older areas of its district to undertake more housing improvement; it could look more rigorously to special needs—the disabled, the one-parent families, the single person and the handicapped, the frustrated poorer would-be owner-occupier; or it might consult with less fortunate neighbouring local councils and see if it could help them by building with them. These and other possibilities would be open to it, rather than pile up an unnecessary surplus or profit.
For those reasons, I consider the Lords amendment undesirable.

Mr. Timothy Raison: The Opposition strongly oppose the Government's attempt to defeat the amendment from the House of Lords. The amendment was passed by 116 votes to 59, and it is interesting to note that there was Liberal support and some sympathy from the Labour Party for their lordships' action.
We are arguing for the right of councils to make a surplus on their housing revenue account if they believe that to make sense. The amendment provides the right, not the duty, to make a surplus.
The Labour Party manifesto was quoted frequently during the previous proceedings, and by the Minister this evening, in justification of the Government's view. However, the Labour Party manifesto said that Labour would restore to local authorities the right to fix rents which do not make profits from tenants. The manifesto used the word "right" rather than "duty", and the Lords amendment would allow councils the right not to make a surplus if they did not wish to do so. Nothing in the Lords amendment makes it mandatory for councils to make a surplus. Therefore, the Lords amendment does not contradict the Labour Party manifesto.

Mr. Frank Allaun: I am not speaking of party affiliations. However, if a reactionary council wished to disadvantage its council tenants, perhaps to help the ratepayers, the amendment proposed by the hon. Gentleman would fall into its lap.

Mr. Raison: I intend to come to that point.
Throughout the long and occasionally wearisome proceedings on the Housing Finance Bill in Committee, the Labour Opposition wished to increase the freedom of local authorities to make their own decisions. If we give people freedom, that must entail a degree of freedom for them to make decisions which we may or may not like.

Mr. Allaun: Does that include the freedom to make a profit out of council tenants?

Mr. Raison: I shall come to that point.
The Lords amendment gives the council the right to produce a surplus if it judges that to be right. A council does not have to exercise that right if it does not wish to do so. The point made in another place, when the amendment was moved, was that it may well be for the proper judgment of a council to exercise that right. The amendment seeks to enlarge the freedom of action of local authorities. Therefore, the Government's action in seeking to defeat the Lords amendment exposes the cant in the protestations of the Labour Party about freedom for local authorities. I have referred to the wearisome hypocrisy of Labour Members during the proceedings on the Housing Finance Act. This amendment affords the chance to achieve a little of that much-vaunted freedom about which the Labour Party like to talk.
However, that is far from being the whole story. There are sensible reasons why a local authority might wish to exercise this freedom. At a time of high inflation, and of great uncertainty over local government finance, and all finance, a surplus on the housing revenue account could be of real potential value. The reasonable working balance envisaged by the Government does not necessarily cover that point. That is different from the notion of a reserve, which is embodied in the idea of a surplus. A working balance might well prove inadequate to


meet the ups and downs of public expenditure. It will be possible to use the surplus, of which the Lords amendment speaks, if there is a sudden crisis or escalation of costs, which, Heaven knows, is perfectly on the cards.
What does Government legislation really mean? What is "a reasonable working balance"? As Lord Foot asked in the other place, when does it become a surplus? The Under-Secretary of State said in Standing Committee:
In the Bill we seek to restore freedom to local authorities. In doing so, we are not saying to local authorities … that they shall not accumulate a surplus in their housing revenue account".—[Official Report, Startling Committee A; 28th November 1974, c. 65.]
But that is exactly what they seem to be saying. The amendment would allow such a surplus. Can we have a definitive and preferably not lengthy statement of what the Government mean? Is their attempt to defeat the amendment simply a sop to the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) and his hon. Friends?
It is implied that the amendment is designed to penalise council tenants. It emphatically is not. It means only that in those areas where the housing stock is not new, and is therefore less expensive, although perfectly good, it would not be wrong to bring rents up to a reasonable level as defined by the local authorities and to use any surplus for the good of the community. This is only a variant of the approach favoured by Labour Members, a pooling of costs rather than an assessment of each house on its individual historic costs. Under that system, the lucky people in rent terms pay a little towards the costs of those whose housing would otherwise cost more.
So there is nothing novel in the idea of redistribution of the housing revenue account. The amendment is a recognition of that principle and of the fact that whether one has a low cost council house or flat is decided not by one's income but by fate. Many people in the community may be much worse off than some local council tenants, so it is not wrong that a surplus should exist to help them. But the amendment does not require local authorities to take this course: it merely gives them the freedom to have a surplus if they believe it right.
The amendment would explicitly allow councils to make a surplus in their housing revenue account, which is something in which the Under-Secretary believes. It is also a chance to clarify an obscure piece of drafting. Third, it gives local authorities some freedom, which the Government apparently do not want to give. Fourth and perhaps strongest, it allows for some common sense. That may be anathema to some Socialists, but the House should support its application. As Lord Foot said in another place:
I think there is a great deal in what is suggested by the amendment, because things would be made much clearer if these words were simpy omitted."—[Official Report, House of Lords; 11th February 1975, c. 1249.]
I hope that we shall have a victory for common sense tonight.

Mr. Nick Budgen: Column 65 of the Committee proceedings shows why the Government are so opposed to the use of the word "surplus". It is plain from the passage further on from that quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) that it is equated with the word "profit". It is the concept of profit in housing which sticks in the craws of Labour Members. If we had been braver in our support of profit in every sphere, particularly in housing, half the problems that beset the housing market would not exist.
I hope that we of the Opposition will proudly proclaim our belief in profit in housing by supporting the amendment of the other place. In doing so, we shall also be proudly supporting the principle of local democracy.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Freeson: I want to make one or two general remarks. First, on the question of principle, I for one would certainly favour the idea of local authorities providing services other than housing which one could loosely call "commercial type" services—services which if provided by private enterprise, would be so described. However, I shall not go too far down that road, because that is not before us in detail now. I should favour the idea of local authorities being able to make what I believe Marx described many years ago as municipal profits on behalf of the community.
When it comes to housing, however, I do not believe that it is right for public authorities to run such a service for commercial purposes. I hope that we shall take hon. Members of the Opposition with us when in due time, perhaps—during the many years of Labour Government ahead—we proceed to experiment with social enterprise in this matter as well as others, in competition with the private sector generally, with a view to accruing some benefit to ratepayers and taxpayers and the community at large. But that matter must rest for another occasion.
I hope, too, that we shall have the support of Conservative Members in giving greater freedom to local authorities to act generally in these matters, when we look more deeply at such matters as direct labour organisation in the future and similar services, and at questions which will revolve around the individual freedoms and rights of local authorities to provide these services for the community.
So much for the generality of the principle of local authorities being able to have freedom and being able to go in for the creation of what has been described very usefully as municipal profits for the community.
I come to the particular matter of housing. During the long and wearisome passage of the Housing Finance Act 1972, time and again in argument then, we stated as a matter of policy and principle that as a party we were opposed to the idea of profit being made out of a public service, which until the passage of that Act had always been treated as a nonprofit making service. Events overtook that Act so that its objectives in this respect were never in practice achieved. But this does not alter the fact that we disagreed with the original objectives of the Act. Those objectives were, indeed, to require more and more local authorities to make a profit on this hitherto non-profit-making public service. What is more, they required that when such profit was made it was to be taken by the Treasury and some part handed back subsequently to the local authority, to the detriment of the rate support grant that would be negotiated subsequently with the Treasury.
These matters are on record. They were argued in great detail at the time. Therefore, we have not only made clear our position on the question of returning freedom of action on fixing rents—contrary to what the present Opposition had fought for, successfully, in their Act, although now they are pretending or tending to forget it—but we have raised and argued our objections against their policy and in favour of this flexibility and freedom of action for the fixing of reasonable rents. We equally argued against making housing in this field a profit-making, commercial type service. That is the background.
Coming to the specific situation before us, the position is this. If we do not make it abundantly clear in what sometimes are described as manifesto-type texts in the Bill—it is not the first time that such principles have been stated in texts in Bills, under successive Governments—that any action taken by a local authority to establish what it considered to be a reasonable working balance—not surplus—from one year to another, should not mean that it could go into vast surplus, it would be open to local authorities to so go into vast surplus which, correctly described by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) in other terms, could be described as going into profit. It is a simple proposition of principle. There may be working balances, but there may not be vast surpluses or profits.

Mr. Raison: Will the Minister explain to us exactly what the Under-Secretary meant when he said:
In doing so, we are not saying to local authorities … that they shall not accumulate a surplus in their housing revenue account."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A; 28th November 1974, c. 65.]

Mr. Freeson: If the hon. Gentleman will read on in the text he will find that during subsequent exchanges it was established that there had been a switch of labels at that point and what my hon. Friend had said and made clear subsequently was that he was referring to working balances—that there was nothing to stop a local authority from providing a working balance from one year to the next, but that there was no question of profitability.

Mr. Raison: Will the Minister acknowledge that in the House of Lords debate a great deal of attention was devoted to the question of what a working balance meant? There is no satisfactory definition of it. It is clear to us that the inclusion of the word "surplus" gives a sense which does not exist at present or at the least serves to clarify it.

Mr. Freeson: I do not want to keep repeating myself, but, having had some experience in local government, as I know the hon. Gentleman has, I am well aware of what it means to try to get a reasonable working balance, not only on the housing revenue account, but also in other aspects of local government finance from one year to another. If a local authority, in looking at its programmes for the coming year, establishes that costs have risen or are likely to rise during the currency of the prospective budget, it will make allowance for that so that it does not find the housing revenue account out of balance at the end of the next financial year. It will provide for a working balance to cover sharp and unexpected rises which can occur during the course of the year. Those rises can occur through

changes in interest rates or through a speeding up in the building programme. A change in income level can occur due to a slowing down in the completion rate of houses so that there is a slowing down in the rate at which houses come into rent.

It is factors such as these that a local authority, in close and detailed consultation with its housing manager and borough treasurer or director of finance, will establish at the beginning of a financial year. It will also see how its programme of repairs is being carried out and carry out an assessment of maintenance costs. It will then provide for a return of rental income which will meet such outgoings. There is nothing mysterious about this. We do not have to spell these points out in legislation. They are part of the management of housing estates which local authorities have been concerned with for over half a century.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 282, Noes 237.

Division No. 103.]
AYES
[10.55 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Cartwright, John
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)


Allaun, Frank
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
English, Michael


Anderson, Donald
Clemitson, Ivor
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)


Archer, Peter
Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Evans, John (Newton)


Armstrong, Ernest
Cohen, Stanley
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)


Ashley, Jack
Coleman, Donald
Faulds, Andrew


Ashton, Joe
Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Conlan, Bernard
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)


Atkinson, Norman
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Flannery, Martin


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Corbett, Robin
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Bates, Alf
Cronin, John
Ford, Ben


Bean, R. E.
Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Forrester, John


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Cryer, Bob
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)


Bidwell, Sydney
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Freeson, Reginald


Bishop, E. S.
Dalyell, Tam
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Davidson, Arthur
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Boardman, H.
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
George, Bruce


Booth, Albert
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Gilbert, Dr John


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Ginsburg, David


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Golding, John


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Deakins, Eric
Gould, Bryan


Bradley, Tom
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Gourlay, Harry


Bray, Dr Jeremy
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Graham, Ted


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Delargy, Hugh
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Grocott, Bruce


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Dempsey, James
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Buchan, Norman
Doig, Peter
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Buchanan, Richard
Dormand, J. D.
Hamling, William


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hardy, Peter


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Dunn, James A.
Harper, Joseph


Campbell, Ian
Dunnett, Jack
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Canavan, Dennis
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Hart, Rt Hon Judith


Cant, R. B.
Eadie, Alex
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Carmichael, Neil
Edelman, Maurice
Hatton, Frank


Carter, Ray
Edge, Geoff
Hayman, Mrs Helene


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis




Heffer, Eric S.
Marquand, David
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Hooley, Frank
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Horam, John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)


Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Meacher, Michael
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Huckfield, Les
Mendelson, John
Silverman, Julius


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Mikardo, Ian
Skinner, Dennis


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Millan, Bruce
Small, William


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Snape, Peter


Hunter, Adam
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Spearing, Nigel


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Molloy, William
Spriggs, Leslie


Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Moonman, Eric
Stallard, A. W.


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Janner, Greville
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Stott, Roger


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Moyle, Roland
Strang, Gavin


Jeger, Mrs Lena
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)
Newens, Stanley
Swain, Thomas


John, Brynmor
Noble, Mike
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Ogden, Eric
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
O'Halloran, Michael
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Orbach, Maurice
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Ovenden, John
Tierney, Sydney


Judd, Frank
Owen, Dr David
Tinn, James


Kaufman, Gerald
Padley, Walter
Tomlinson, John


Kelley, Richard
Palmer, Arthur
Torney, Tom


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Park, George
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Kinnock, Neil
Parker, John
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Lambie, David
Parry, Robert
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Lamborn, Harry
Pavitt, Laurie
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Lamortd, James
Peart, Rt Hon Fred
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Pendry, Tom
Ward, Michael


Leadbitter, Ted
Perry, Ernest
Watkinson, John


Lee, John
Phipps, Dr Colin
Weetch, Ken


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Weitzman, David


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Prescott, John
Wellbeloved, James


Lipton, Marcus
Price C. (Lewisham W)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Lomas, Kenneth
Price, William (Rugby)
White, James (Pollok)


Luard, Evan
Radice, Giles
Whitehead, Phillip


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Richardson, Miss Jo
Whitlock, William


Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


McCartney, Hugh
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


McElhone, Frank
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


MacFarquhar, Roderick
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Rooker, J. W.
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Mackenzie, Gregor
Roper, John
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Mackintosh, John P.
Rose, Paul B.
Woodall, Alec


Maclennan, Robert
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilm'nock)
Woof, Robert


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Rowlands, Ted
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Madden, Max
Ryman, John
Young, David (Bolton E)


Magee, Bryan
Sandelson, Neville
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Mahon, Simon
Sedgemore, Brian
Mr. David Stoddart and


Marks, Kenneth
Selby, Harry
Mr. John Ellis.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Budgen, Nick
Drayson, Burnaby


Aitken, Jonathan
Bulmer, Esmond
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Alison, Michael
Burden, F. A.
Durant, Tony


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Dykes, Hugh


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Carlisle, Mark
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Baker, Kenneth
Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Banks, Robert
Channon, Paul
Elliott, Sir William


Bell, Ronald
Churchill, W. S.
Emery, Peter


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Eyre, Reginald


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Clark, William (Croydon S)
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Berry, Hon Anthony
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fairgrieve, Russell


Biffen, John
Clegg, Walter
Farr, John


Biggs-Davison, John
Cockcroft, John
Fell, Anthony


Blaker, Peter
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Body, Richard
Cope, John
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Cormack, Patrick
Fletcher Alex (Edinburgh N)


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Corrie, John
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Costain, A. P.
Fookes, Miss Janet


Brittan, Leon
Critchley, Julian
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)


Brotherton, Michael
Crouch, David
Fox, Marcus


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Crowder, F. P.
Freud, Clement


Bryan, Sir Paul
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Fry, Peter


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Buck, Antony
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)







Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Luce, Richard
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Glyn, Dr Alan
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Goodhew, Victor
McCrindle, Robert
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Goodlad, Alastair
Macfarlane, Neil
Royle, Sir Anthony


Gorst, John
MacGregor, John
Sainsbury, Tim


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Scott, Nicholas


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Gray, Hamish
Mates, Michael
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Grieve, Percy
Mather, Carol
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Griffiths, Eldon
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Shepherd, Colin


Grist, Ian
Mawby, Ray
Shersby, Michael


Hall, Sir John
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Silvester, Fred


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mayhew, Patrick
Sims, Roger


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Sinclair, Sir George


Hampson, Dr Keith
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Hannam, John
Mills, Peter
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Hastings, Stephen
Moate, Roger
Speed, Keith


Havers, Sir Michael
Monro, Hector
Spence, John


Hayhoe, Barney
Montgomery, Fergus
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Heseltine, Michael
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Sproat, Iain


Hicks, Robert
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Stainton, Keith


Higgins, Terence L.
Morgan, Geraint
Stanbrook, Ivor


Holland, Philip
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Stanley, John


Hordern, Peter
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Howell, David (Guildford)
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Mudd, David
Stokes, John


Hunt, John
Neave, Airey
Tapsell, Peter


Hurd, Douglas
Nelson, Anthony
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Neubert, Michael
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Newton, Tony
Tebbit, Norman


James, David
Nott, John
Temple-Morris, Peter


Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp;W'df'd)
Onslow, Cranley
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Jessel, Toby
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Osborn, John
Townsend, Cyril D.


Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Trotter, Neville


Jopling, Michael
Pardoe, John
Tugendhat, Christopher


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Pattie, Geoffrey
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Kaberry Sir Donald
Penhaligon, David
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Percival, Ian
Viggers, Peter


Kimball, Marcus
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Pink, R. Bonner
Wakeham, John


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Raison, Timothy
Wall, Patrick


Lamont, Norman
Rathbone, Tim
Warren, Kenneth


Lane, David
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Weatherill, Bernard


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Wells, John


Latham, Michael (Melton)
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Lawrence, Ivan
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Winterton, Nicholas


Lawson, Nigel
Ridsdale, Julian
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Le Marchant, Spencer
Rifkind, Malcolm
Younger, Hon George


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Mr. Jeffrey Thomas and


Lloyd, Ian
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Mr. W. Benyon.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 2

RESERVE POWER TO LIMIT RENTS

Lords Amendment: No. 2, in page 2, line 19, leave out "section" and insert "subsection".

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Gerald Kaufman): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With it we shall discuss Lords Amendments Nos. 3 and 4.

Mr. Kaufman: Although the amendments appear earlier in the clause they are

consequential on the insertion of five new subsections into the clause. The inserted subsections have a different date of operation—two weeks after Royal Assent—and consequently the reference in subsection (4) to the coming into force of the section needs to be to the coming into force of that subsection, that is on Royal Assent. I hope that clarifies matters.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 5, in page 2, line 26, at end insert:
(4A) The Counter-Inflation (Private Sector Residential Rents) (England and Wales) Order 1974 and the Counter-Inflation (Private Sector Residential Rents) (England and Wales) No. 2


Order 1974 are revoked, and the standstill period under the first order (which was extended by Article 3 of the second order) shall terminate on the coming into force of this subsection.
(4B) Notwithstanding the revocation of the orders—

(a) Article 5 of the first order (recovery of excess rent) shall continue to have effect for the purposes of both orders, so as to enable a tenant to recover rent at any time during which he would have been able to recover it if the orders had not been revoked, and
(b) Article 8 of that order (jurisdiction of the county court) shall continue to have effect, for the purposes of both orders, in respect of any proceedings commenced before the expiry of a period of two years from the date of the revocation.

(4C) Paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (4B) above shall continue to have effect during the periods specified in them, whether or not Part II of the Counter-Inflation Act 1973 (under which the two revoked orders were made) is in effect.
(4D) Notwithstanding the revocation of the orders, the rent recoverable under a regulated tenancy of a dwelling-house in respect of a contractual period beginning before but ending after the revocation shall not exceed the amount which, by virtue of the orders, was the counter-inflation limit for the dwelling-house immediately before the revocation.
(4E) Section 38(2) of the Interpretation Act 1889 (effect of repeals) shall apply in relation to the orders as it applies to an enactment which is repealed by another Act.

Mr Kaufman: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall take Lords Amendments Nos. 6, 7, 19 and 60.

Mr. Kaufman: Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 incorporate in the clause the provisions which bring the rent freeze to an end in the private sector by revoking the orders which imposed it, with some savings to safeguard rights acquired and to preserve things done under those orders.
The moving of Clause 2 so that it comes after Clause 11 is proposed simply for the sake of the logical arrangement of the Bill. Now that the provision covers both the public and private sectors it should not come in the middle of the public sector clauses.
Lords Amendments Nos. 19 and 60 are purely technical amendments. They

add the counter-inflation orders, revoked by Clause 2, to the Schedule of repeals.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

New Clause A

ELIGIBILITY FOR HOUSING ASSOCIATION GRANT AND REVENUE DEFICIT GRANT

Lords Amendment: No. 8, in page 6, line 5, at end insert new Clause A:
A. The fact that a housing association is a society registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965 and that its rules restrict membership to persons who are tenants or prospective tenants of the association and preclude the grant or assignment of tenancies to persons other than members shall not render it ineligible for housing association grant under section 29 of the Housing Act 1974 or for revenue deficit grant under section 32 of that Act.

Mr. Freeson: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we shall take Lord amendments 24 to 32, 34, 38, 40, 56 and 61.

Mr. Freeson: In moving the amendments as a group I can first briefly explain to the House their effect. Amendment No. 8, which has inserted a new Clause A in the Bill, is designed to enable the co-operative movement to operate in housing association as well as in local authority matters, by removing a restriction on the membership of the associations. The other amendments in this group extend the principle of co-operation in the local authority area to new towns and to the North-Eastern Housing Association. There is also one change in nomenclature: for clarity the name of these co-operatives has been made "housing co-operatives".
For convenience, I turn first to the new clause, briefly to explain the way in which it will enable grant to be paid to co-operatives which are registered housing associations. The provisions of the Housing Act 1974 prevented housing association grant and revenue deficit grant from being paid to associations where all the tenants have to be members and vice versa. This constraint was introduced to make co-ownership schemes, the


members of which benefit from option mortgage subsidy, ineligible also for housing association grant. But the effect was also to debar from grant other housing association co-operatives which adopt rules involving full mutuality between tenants and members. Such rules are necessary if the members of the co-operative are to be able to determine their own rents without the intervention of the rent officer, and thus to be in a position to meet their ongoing costs, once the initial payment of grant has been made.
It may be that in the present uncertain situation of high and unpredictable cost inflation, housing association co-operatives will find it difficult to go on covering costs by increasing their rents in this way, and for this reason we have made it possible for them to have recourse in the last resort, like other registered housing associations, to revenue deficit grant. But I hope and believe that within the housing association movement there are people anxious to pioneer co-operative schemes, and this new clause will give them the necessary flexibility to do so. I also hope that building societies and other financial institutions will be encouraged to consider making loan finance available to such schemes. I shall shortly be consulting with them and with builders to examine ways by which this can be done.
There is one further point. As will have become clear, the amendment to Sections 29 and 32 of the Housing Act 1974 will, in addition to encouraging housing association co-operatives, enable us to grant-aid co-ownership schemes. This is a topic to which the Campbell Working Party on housing co-operatives and tenant participation, which I appointed some months ago, will be returning in its second report—I recently received its first report—and I will at that stage make a further statement to the House. But it is clear that we need to consider ways in which grant can be paid to schemes in which people can contribute towards acquiring an individual share in the equity of their homes, so that we do not polarise the housing market between owner-occupiers and tenants.
I turn to local authorities. The aim of the co-operative provision for local

authorities in the Bill, as inserted on Report in this House, was very simple. Where houses are in the ownership of a local authority, which has either built them or bought them, they receive subsidy. Traditionally that subsidy is cut off if the council sells or leases a house. Assistance after that point is usually given to the purchaser by tax relief. But that would be inappropriate where the houses were passing into a new form of social ownership, a lease to a housing co-operative. The provisions in paragraph 9 of Schedule 1 accordingly continue housing subsidy to the local authority after such a disposal. The benefit of the subsidy may be passed on by the authority to the co-operative in fixing the rent under the lease. This preserves the benefit of subsidy in a flexible and easily adjustable way, since the local authority may either fix a rent which passes on to the co-operative the exact amount of subsidy the council itself receives with or without the rate fund contribution it makes in addition; or by fixing a lower rent it may pass on more; or by fixing a higher rent it may pass on less.
A willing association of tenants and a willing local authority are both required for the arrangements to be effective. There are also ample safeguards for the taxpayers' interest in the requirement that the Secretary of State shall approve the co-operative, to ensure that it is a properly constituted and well-supported body; the terms of the disposal, to ensure that the dwellings remain in social ownership; and the actual transaction, to ensure that the arrangements are being applied to the right sort of dwellings on the right sort of scale. Controls, as the House will appreciate, may be a means of stimulus as well as a power of veto. It would not be the intention to operate them in a negative or deadening way—on the contrary.
Let me say briefly what housing co-operatives in the local authority are not. They are not intended to provide a means by which the responsibilities can be moved from shoulders able to bear them to shoulders unable to bear them. I say this to allay any fears there may be that local authorities will be permitted or encouraged to shuffle off the responsibility for running difficult or unsatisfactory housing on to an under-financed,


inadequately supported ad hoc group of tenants. That is not the intention. A co-operative of tenants must, first of all, be willing to take on the responsibility. It must satisfy the terms of the advisory circular and the model scheme we shall be drawing up that it is itself a properly-constituted body. Next, the functions it will assume, and the terms on which it will assume them, will need to be approved. There will also be control of the individual transaction so that we could say that even where the terms were satisfactory these were not the right sort of dwellings for the responsibility to be devolved. There are, therefore, ample safeguards.
The provisions allow for co-operatives to have more or fewer housing management functions, for a longer or shorter period. Thus, a tenants' association could initially take over a limited range of repair and management functions for a few years, while to begin with wider powers such as fixing rents and selecting new tenants could remain with the council. When the co-operative had proved its ability to discharge the limited functions well, the agreement could, subject to approval, be expanded to give it wider powers for a longer period, making it to all intents and purposes its own landlord. That is one way in which it could work, but there could be many variations.
11.15 p.m.
When I introduced the local authority provisions on Report I referred to the need to involve tenants more deeply in the process of taking the many decisions of a major or a minor kind which affect their homes, their environment and their rents. I touched on the housing advantages, somewhat narrowly defined, which would flow from this—the better maintenance, reduced vandalism, etc.—and mentioned also the wider social advantages. I described two primary examples of the kinds of situation where I could see that co-operatives would have immediate potential. One of these is the old-established local authority estate where the tenants are ready and willing to take over the management.
The second example is the block of property now rented privately, where the tenants can see immediately that only social ownership will defend and improve what they now have. In this second

instance the tenants may also see equally well that only if they arrange to run the property themselves will they get things done as and when they like, and that the local authority, whose machinery is almost certainly hard-pressed at present, would take an altogether different view of the transaction if it knew that a tenants' co-operative stood ready and willing to take over the day-to-day running from the landlord.
There is, thirdly, an area of new policy in which local authority or building society mortgage facilities will be useful to prospective tenant-owners.

Mr. F. P. Crowder: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not know how many pages of this letter from his mother the Minister is reading, but this will not do—just reading out a lot of drivel to the House on an important question of this nature.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Order, The content of the Minister's speech is not for me to comment upon, but there was nothing out of order in what the Minister was doing.

Mr. Crowder: When a Minister comes to the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and reads out pages of stuff which really is very difficult to follow, is that a speech?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman has been a Member almost as long as I have, and he will know that it is a very old custom for what the House considers to be the copious use of notes by Ministers to be accepted.

Mr. Freeson: I am tempted to intervene in what I was saying to remark that the hon. and learned Member has every right to intervene, comment and have a view about the content of what I am saying but that what he has said shows a lamentable ignorance of what people are interested in in the housing sector.

Mr. Crowder: We are interested. That is why we should like to hear something from the Minister—not something he is reading out at express speed.

Mr. Freeson: I hope that if the hon. and learned Member cannot follow what I am saying tonight, he will show sufficient interest to take a leisurely moment or two tomorrow to read the


text of what I am saying, and I hope to hear further from him of his great interest in housing co-operatives and in housing matters generally. I have not yet heard from him in the House or elsewhere on such subjects.
I was saying that there is a third area of new policy of housing co-operatives in which local authority or building society mortgage facilities would be useful to prospective tenant-owners. I hope that I may have the opportunity shortly of having further discussions with local authority representatives and with building societies and the builders to discuss possible developments in this field. I am awaiting a second report from the working party on housing co-operatives and tenant participation, which will give some lines of consideration in this field as well as those I have been discussing.

Mr. Michael Latham: Since the Minister is advocating tenant management of co-operatives, may I ask why he is so opposed to the sale of flats to council tenants?

Mr. Freeson: I prefer to confine myself to discussing what I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree is a new and worth-while form of tenure which this country has seen little of. I trust that he will be as flexible in approaching this matter as I know he is on other matters without introducing something that is not relevant.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: While the Minister is dealing with the different forms of tenure, will he explain what is in essence the practical difference between a housing association and a housing co-operative?

Mr. Freeson: I am a little surprised to hear that question coming from the hon. Gentleman. I do not think it would help if I spent a lot of time in explaining that a housing association, with a few exceptions—there are exceptions, and indeed there are three in my constituency—is not a tenants' co-operative but is run by other people who rent dwellings to the tenants. In other words, the dwellings are not properties owned collectively by the tenants or managed by themselves. Technically, that is the simple difference.
I referred also to the options opened up for the longer term by the development of provisions for co-operatives—namely, the scope for developing arrangements for equity-sharing and forms of tenure which release us from the trap of having only owner-occupation, council or housing association renting in our housing market. Therefore, one of the objectives of the policy is to introduce a new and variable form of tenure of which we have seen little up to the present. I am examining further ways by which privately rented properties might be brought into social ownership and control.
We shall now have a solid piece of initial legislation on which to build an important social reform. I describe it as an initial provision because we cannot claim to have provided in this Bill all the powers and machinery that a progressive housing co-operative movement may need in the years to come, and we shall bring further proposals before Parliament as we gain experience and in the light of the further reports to which I have referred.

Question put and agreed to.—[Special entry.]

Clause 9

CERTAIN AMENITIES TO BE DISREGARDED IN DETERMINING FAIR RENT

Lords Amendment: No. 9, in page 7, line 7, leave out "paragraph" and insert "paragraphs".

Mr. Kaufman: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): With this amendment it will also be convenient to take the following Lords amendments:
No. 11, in page 7, line 18, at end insert:
(bbb) any deterioration after the material date in the amenities of the locality (including the disappearance of any of them) other than a deterioration attributable to any act or omission of the landlord or a superior landlord or a predecessor in title of the landlord or a superior landlord; and
No. 12, in page 7, line 21, after "(3) (bb)" and insert "and (bbb)".

Mr. Kaufman: The effect of these amendments is to make Clause 9 work in


both directions. Under the clause as amended rent officers and rent assessment committees will be required, in fixing fair rents, to take certain action—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) has graced us with his presence. I hope he will continue to grace us with his silence. [HON. MEMBEHS: "Oh."] Rent officers and rent assessment committees will be required in fixing fair rents to disregard not only provisions of and improvements in neighbourhood amenities since the material date to which the landlord has contributed nothing, but also deterioration in or disappearance of such amenities for which he is not to blame.

Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: I wish to oppose these amendments. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] On Report amendments were tabled to require the rent officer in assessing a fair rent to disregard improvements in the locality. There is an apparent—and I submit only an apparent—equity in making the provision operate in both directions so that one should equally disregard the deterioration in the locality. I submit that this is a false analogy.
One finds the situation where a tenant gets into a specific house and after houses opposite are pulled down and the area is turned into a park a number of richer people may wish to live in the house. Should such a person have to pay a higher rent because there is stronger competition to live in the house? I submit that the answer is "No".
For this reason I supported the amendments in the Bill as it left the House, but it is not a fair analogy to say that if the tenant moved into a house because there was a school round the corner, or a shop at the corner of the road, when the benefits for which he had contracted have disappeared, he should not be entitled to a reduction. The question is whether the tenant should be entitled to say, "I wanted this house because it had these amenities".
When an amenity has disappeared it is reasonable for the tenant to say that he is entitled to have a rent reduction. When the matter was discussed in another place the withdrawal of transport services from a locality was the example which was given. That is a serious ground for contending that the rental values in an area should be reduced. That should apply

if a tenant has to travel great distances without public transport facilities or if there is a decline in the adequacy of the shopping facilities. Those are the facilities for which tenants would look when moving into an area. In effect, they were the covenanted facilities. If they disappear it is reasonable to argue that the rent should be reduced. If a benefit accrues for which the tenant had not looked and which he may not have desired—for example, there is frequent gentrification—I do not think it is reasonable that the rent should be increased because of that. Rental values may go up but the amenities the existing tenant wants may have disappeared.
I favour the provisions in paragraph (1)(bb) but not in paragraph (1)(bbb). It is unfortunate that we have to refer to them in that way. I accept the taking together of the two paragraphs, but the whole clause is now becoming so complex and unsatisfactory that it would have been preferable if the initial proposal had not been introduced.
From the very beginning Section 46 of the Rent Act imposed almost impossible problems on rent officers in trying to determine a fair rent in circumstances in which one of the factors which clearly would normally be taken into account in assessing the rent has to be disregarded. As we know from the Francis Report and from other investigations, and particularly from the previous report, they have evolved a mode of operating the provisions of the Act. That has been settled over the years. We now, however, find in recent House of Lords cases—principally the case of Mason v. Skilling—that it has been accepted in determining a fair rent that the rent officers and the rent assessment committees are entitled to have regard to the capital value of the premises and to consider what would provide a reasonable return to the landlord on his investment. It was further decided that regard should be paid to the return that could reasonably be expected on the capital value of the premises with vacant possession.
Then there arose the situation in Palmer v. Peabody Trust in which it was held that the fact that a tenant of a housing association has no security of tenure should be disregarded. In short, we are having a series of decisions from


the courts which are reinforcing the pattern of rent assessment committees in hoisting rents and the basis upon which they are determined higher and higher.
I submit that what is needed is not so much further qualifications and sub-qualifications to Section 46 of the Rent Act but new patterns of selection for rent assessment committees. We do not want the committees, which by their constitutions are inevitably dominated by those who have a specific interest, to be engaged in raising property values generally.
If there is someone who makes his living from commission on sales of property, it is inevitable—and I say this without in any way suggesting that he is acting improperly—that he will tend to be advantaged by rental values rising. It is reported to me that not only in London but all over the country rent assessment committees, as distinct from rent officers, are substantially increasing rent levels while the courts, particularly in these recent decisions, have been reinforcing the decisions of the rent assessment committees.
11.30 p.m.
I had hoped that the effect of the paragraph as it was on Report would be to put at least some check on the justification to go on raising rent values in areas subjected to gentrification. If one is not to be allowed to argue that the amenities of an area have deteriorated, we shall find that these provisions are at best a nullity and at worst provide nothing more than a licence for an even more rapid acceleration in the levels of rents.

Mr. Frank Allaun: My hon. Friend will remember that in Committee and on Report Labour Members were critical of the Bill for failing to restrict rent increases in the private landlord sector, but that, as a very slight concession to us, it was provided that a rent officer should not take account of the fact that the rents of surrounding property had gone up and so increase the rent. That concession went a very little way towards satisfying us. Is not even that slight concession now being removed, because although rents are prevented from going up, they are also prevented from going down?

Mr. Douglas-Mann: I entirely agree. I think that in practice not only that little concession will be taken away, but the tenant will lose far more, because he will not be able to complain about loss of the amenities for which he looked in the locality.
Although the landlord will not be able to charge an old-age pensioner more rent just because an ice-skating rink has been built around the corner, that old-age pensioner will not be able to claim a reduction of rent because the local shop on which she relied for her food supplies has gone; nor will the other tenant who relied on a bus service that has now been withdrawn and who chose to live in that specific house just because of that bus service. There is a logical distinction between the two cases.
I urge the Government, if it is not too late for them to do so, to reject the amendment.

Mr. Michael Latham: I had not intended to intervene in this debate and it is for the Minister to reply to his hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann). However, the hon. Member's remarks about rent assessment committees should not go entirely unchallenged.
I listened very carefully to what he said. He used the word "advantaged" He said that he did not impute any improper motive, but that it was to the advantage of the rent assessment committee, because they included chartered surveyors and so on, that there should be steadily rising levels of property values and rents and so on. It does not matter how he meant that to be interpreted, for the only meaning in which it can be interpreted is that they will judge the level of rents that they will impose according to their professional and commercial advantage. I regard that as a most unfortunate remark to be made by any hon. Member, particularly when there is no evidence to support it, and he made no attempt to do so.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: I am grateful for the opportunity of making it clear that I am not imputing anything improper to the members of rent assessment committees. I am suggesting that the fundamental attitude of mind of somebody whose income depends on a steady increase in property values is to cause them


to think that, in the same way as what was good for General Motors was good for the country, what is good for landlords is beneficial for the community at large. I am not suggesting that rent assessment committees are acting improperly, but that it would be preferable if they did not have that opportunity.

Mr. Latham: I do not think that the House has been greatly advantaged by that intervention. I respect the hon. Gentleman's expertise in these matters, but I listened to him with some gloom. Rent assessment committees and rent officers have a statutory duty under the Rent Act—that was the Act piloted through the House by the late Richard Crossman—to carry out their extremely obscure duties under Section 46 and to define a fair rent under the terms laid down by Parliament. That is their duty. They have no duty other than to define a fair rent under the terms laid down by Parliament. I am far from heartened, despite the gloss put upon it, to hear the hon. Gentleman use the word "advantage". The House should defend public servants who are doing their best to do the job laid down by Parliament and not impute to them, however indirectly, motives which have nothing to do with their statutory duties.

Mr. George Cunningham: I will not follow the point made by the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham). I support my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) in opposing the Lords Amendment.
If the amendment is carried, the effect will be that, for example, any great increase in traffic along the road on which a house stands will not be allowed as a factor to diminish the rent when it comes up for review, any decrease in parking facilities would not be admissible as a ground for reducing the rent, and I presume that the giving of planning permission for a fish packing factory nearby would also not be a ground for permitting a reduction in the rent. Yet these matters and all the other illustrations which one could give would be relevant for the purpose of establishing rateable value. Therefore, in my view it would have been logical to allow them to affect the rent. Such matters are relevant to the market price of a property. In the most extreme

or even moderate case one could, to some extent, have the rental value of a property higher than the equivalent of its market price because the market price would go down with the disamenity.
I accept that the point that I have just made is equally applicable to the amendment introduced by the Government on Report in the opposite direction. I did not participate in that debate, but I have been reading it tonight. I find myself in agreement with the former leader of the Islington Borough Council, the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris), who opposed the introduction of that amendment.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden that we must have both or neither. I should prefer that we had neither. It is possible, and my hon. Friend has done it, but difficult to separate the two. The Rent Act 1968 in its principle provision relating to thise matter, Section 46, makes it quite clear that rent officers and rent asssessment committees are to take into account the locality. Indeed, part of the wording refers to the
age, character and locality of the dwelling house".
"Locality" can be relevant only for the physical atmosphere of the locality—the amenities which are generally available in it. What we are now saying is that rent assessment committees are to take into account the locality except those features of it which are not the result of the action of the landlord, whether positive or negative.
Very few features of a locality are the result of the action of the landlord. Parking spaces, road traffic, fish factories, and so on, which are nice or nasty about an area, are the result either of communal action or of individual action. They are not under the control of the landlord, and certainly they are not decided by the landlord himself. Rent assessment committees which have an impossible task but which have got into certain habits—not to say ruts—in how they decide rents will have to find a new rut to get into, because we have mucked up the old rut good and proper with these two amendments.
The problem tonight is which is it better to do: to have logic on one side and have both these provisions in the Bill,


which will clearly disadvantage many tenants in my area which is subject to gentrification, or throw the logic out of the window and admit the amendment which was introduced by the Government in this House, only because it is not before us tonight, and reject the amendment introduced in the Lords and accepted by the Government in a fit of absence of mind.
My intention is to vote against the Lords amendment on the ground that I should rather give up a bit of logic than see tenants suffer a disadvantage in an area such as mine.

Mr. Hugh Rossi: I propose to intervene only briefly, because of the lateness of the hour, to invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the Government in approving the amendment. I do so with some reluctance, because I believe that the introduction of a concept such as amenity into the calculation of rents is a complete nonsense and an absurdity that will cause nothing but trouble for rent officers and rent assessment committees in the future. It is a concept which it is scarcely possible to quantify, and it will lead to a great deal of heartache on the part of landlord and tenant alike in trying to determine how this will affect them.
Having accepted the situation, as the Government did in their Bill before they sent it to the Lords, that amenity has to be taken into account, in one direction, when considering rent, it is only logical and right that that factor should be considered also in the other direction. If an improvement of amenity is to affect the rent, it follows automatically that the reverse of an improvement in an amenity must also affect the rent.
Given this wretched, miserable concept which the Government have put in in a moment of aberration we are forced, in the circumstances, to support them on this amendment.

Mr. Kaufman: I am grateful to the Opposition for supporting us in our aberration, and I should like to take this opportunity to welcome the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) back to the Opposition Front Bench as the spokesman on housing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-

Mann) in opposing the amendment presented the House not so much with a criticism of the amendment as with a critique of the fair rent system. I have a good deal of sympathy with him in that critique, and these are matters to which we shall have to return later, but, meanwhile, it seems to us, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) said with his customary trenchancy, that we are in a situation which is logical both ways or neither way, but not in the middle.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury pointed out how constituents could be compensated for the deterioration of amenities by applying for a reduction in the rates.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Latham: The question is academic. In an abstract sense, because of our knowledge of the background to the amendment, we can accept the case. However, it may well be that the Lords were somewhat obtuse in the matter. The Government introduced Clause 9 to meet a set of difficulties that they could find no other way of meeting. Is not there a similar case to be made to show that taking account of the deterioration of amenities in some localities has led to excessive rent reductions, in the same way as taking account of improvements has led to excessive rent increases? Since I know of no evidence of that kind, is there any justification for the amendment, other than accepting this as an academic and abstract exercise, without any knowledge of the housing problems behind it?

Mr. Kaufman: My hon. Friend is right. The original amendment was introduced in response to a case which he made and which the Government accepted. An amendment may be introduced to deal with a specific case but it becomes general legislation. The original amendment will help to resolve the problems of my hon. Friend's constituents in St. Mary's Mansions, but this is not simply a St. Mary's Mansions' amendment. It will be available for people all over the country to take advantage of. We cannot introduce hybrid amendments. However, this amendment fits in with the concept we introduced in an effort to make a concession to my hon. Friend.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury was right in saying that we should include neither or both of the concepts. We believe that, just as the landlord should receive no benefit from the appearance or enhancement of amenities to which he has contributed nothing, neither should

he suffer through the diminution or disappearance of amenities where he is not to blame.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 407, Noes 42.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 10, in page 7, line 15, after "landlord" insert:
or a predecessor in title of the landlord or a superior landlord".

Mr. Kaufman: I beg to move, That this House do agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is a technical amendment. Its purpose is to make clear that improvements in the amenity of a neighbourhood at the expense of a predecessor in title of the landlord or a superior landlord are not to be disregarded in the determination of a fair rent. A predecessor in title is a previous owner of the interest which now belongs to the landlord. If the previous owner spent money on improving the amenities of the neighbourhood then the present owner should not be denied a rent reflecting this.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Clause 10

TERMINATION OF DECONTROL OF TENANCIES BY REFERENCE TO RATEABLE VALUE

Lords Amendment: No. 13, in page 8, line 1, leave out Clause 10.

Mr. Kaufman: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
It may be to the convenience of the House if, with this amendment, we take Lords Amendment No. 54, in Schedule 6, page 35, leave out lines 1 to 12.
These amendments remove the provisions in the Bill as introduced for the termination of general decontrol by reference to rateable value. In doing so, they destroy one of the essential components of this Bill and also attempt to undermine a pledge given in our manifesto that houses without basic amenities will not be taken out of control. It is clearly

unacceptable that these amendments should go through.
It is also somewhat curious that we should be faced with Lords Amendment No. 13 since when this clause went through Standing Committee not only was no vote cast against it but no word was said against it. The clause was accepted on the nod without a single word in Standing Committee. It is, therefore, somewhat bizarre that another place should wish to delete this essential provision from the Bill. The Government are not prepared to see the automatic change from rent control to rent regulation regardless of the state of repair of the dwelling and the amenities provided. We regard it as indefensible that tenants, many of whom are not well able to fend for themselves, should face rent increases of several hundred per cent. for a dwelling without the standard amenities, which represents a very basic level, and which may be in bad repair. We therefore cannot accept the amendments.

Mr. Michael Morris: May I draw the attention of the Under-Secretary of State to columns 281 onwards in the Official Report of the Standing Committee, from which it is clear that my hon. Friends the Members for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) and for Melton (Mr. Latham) and myself vigorously opposed this clause. I cannot understand how the Under-Secretary should be unaware that in Standing Committee we opposed Clause 8, which is now Clause 10.

Mr. Michael Latham: I too wish to refer to the extraordinary statement by the Under-Secretary.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Bizarre.

Mr. Latham: Quite bizarre. Those of us on these benches who were involved in the Standing Committee were bitterly opposed to Clause 8, as it then was, which represents a substantial attack on any sensible rent policy. It represents a scheme which will bring about far more slums in this country by holding down


rents to an unreasonable level. We opposed it so strongly that when the noble Lord Middleton was moving the amendment in another place which resulted in the deletion of this clause, he was called to order because he quoted a particularly brilliant speech in the Standing Committee by, in his own words, "Mr. Michael Latham".
I hope my hon. Friends will press this amendment to a Division not only because of the great importance of this matter but because of the completely erroneous remarks of the Under-Secretary.

Mr. Kaufman: Not completely erroneous—relatively erroneous.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order—by leave of the House.

Mr. Kaufman: By leave of the House, relatively erroneous. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) for giving me the opportunity to give him the opportunity to draw attention to the speech which he made on that occasion. I was so swept away by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) during the Committee stage when he congratulated us warmly and sincerely on this clause. The fact is that this clause, which went through relatively on the nod in the Standing Committee, is a clause upon which we must insist as an important item of Government policy.

Mr. Hal Miller: It appears from my record of the proceedings that in Committee there was a Division. It can hardly be said to have gone through on the nod.

Mr. Rossi: I will invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to oppose this motion and to vote in support of their Lordships in this matter. I do so on the basis that this is a shabby, mean and spiteful little piece of Labour Party legislation. Let us see what is the subject matter of this Clause 10 which their Lordships took out of the Bill.
It concerns those tenancies which remained in control under the 1957 Rent Act, that is properties with rateable values £40 and under in London or £30 and under outside Greater London. Those were properties at the lower end of the market. In 1969 the then Labour Government realised that great injustice was being caused to many landlords who,

in that sector, were having their rents fixed to what was twice the 1939 letting value. By 1969 it was felt to be unjust that rents should be pegged to twice the 1939 value.
Anthony Greenwood, as he then was, came to his House and told heart-rending stories of constituents of his, owners of properties of this kind. He urged us to embark on a programme of de-control, to remove those tenancies from that old control and make them into regulated tenancies so that fair rents could be fixed. The term used was "fair rents" upon the criteria laid down by the Labour Government. At the same time that Government appointed the Francis Committee to investigate the whole matter.

Mr. William Molloy: Tell us about Rachman.

Mr. Rossi: I refer Labour Members, in case they have not read it, to the report of the Francis Committee. It said:
We have received a considerable amount of evidence … as to the injustice of perpetuating the present system of controlled rents, and as to the complexity and inadequacy of the Housing Act 1969 in this context …
After giving examples of what the committee had seen in its inquiries round the country, where it carried out physical examinations, it came to this conclusion:
It seems indefensible"—

Mr. Molloy: What about Rachman?

Mr. Rossi: as a matter of equity"—

Mr. Molloy: Rachman!

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. If the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) desires to participate in this debate I would be grateful if he will wait and catch the eye of the Chair in due course and not interrupt from a sedentary position.

Mr. Rossi: The Committee said:
It seems indefensible, as a matter of equity, that landlords of such premises—in England and Wales—should continue to be tied to the rent formula laid down in the Rent Act 1957 i.e. that the permitted rent shall not exceed twice the gross value obtaining in November 1956".
After further argument it came to this conclusion:
the controlled system … has undoubtedly created an acute sense of injustice among landlords of controlled premises, and has on the


one hand produced an attitude of indifference to the state of repair of those premises, and on the other hand has engendered a determination to have nothing more to do with letting them but rather to sell them as soon as they become vacant.
12.15 a.m.
In other words, this type of legislation contributes to the housing shortage in the rented sector. It has contributed to the creation of slums because it is precisely in that area of lower rated property that landlords will not spend money upon the property because the return is ridiculous since it is tied to 1939 values. The properties deteriorate and become uninhabitable. It is a scandal that the Government should wish to perpetuate this system. They do so not out of concern for the tenants—that is sheer hypocrisy. The truth lies in statements made repeatedly—

Mr. Molloy: Will the hon. Member give way?

Mr. Rossi: No.

Mr. Molloy: Give way.

Mr. Rossi: I will not give way.

Mr. Molloy: What are you afraid of?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If an hon. Member does not wish to give way he must not be pressed.

Mr. Rossi: I shall not give way to an hon. Member who addresses me discourteously from a sedentary position. If the hon. Member had chosen to get to his feet earlier I would have given way, but not now.

Mr. Frank Allaun: May I ask the hon. Member to consider what he is saying? He is suggesting that landlords who will not put a bath or hot water or an inside lavatory into their tenants' property should be allowed to take that accommodation out of control. That is scandalous and it is to the shame of the Conservatives to suggest it.

Mr. Rossi: The hon. Member is digressing. This is a chicken and egg situation. The landlord will not spend the money on this kind of property unless he has an income which allows him to do so.
Experience of the 1969 Act has been to show that the original system of

requiring a qualification certificate before a rent could be put up would not work. I deliberately did not go into the whole detail of this area because of the time and because I know that hon. Members are anxious to get home. If the Minister turns to page 96 of the Francis Committee Report he will see that it says:
We saw controlled houses in tenement blocks in good repair but lacking one or more standard amenities, e.g. a bathroom. It seemed to us that it would be quite impracticable to install bathrooms in the smaller houses without depriving the tenants of essential living accommodation, and also to carry out the work of installing a bathroom, even if there was spare living accommodation, except at enormous cost.
The disincentive is such that these properties become slums and eventually put an enormous burden upon the public purse which has to put them into good order.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: Will the hon. Member refer to page 98 of that report in his consideration of the value of its recommendations? We have had quite a lot of grounds for doubting the wisdom of the elders who advised us in that report. Page 98 gives a sample:
the Tenants' Survey confirms us in the view that many landlords … accept a rent below the fair rent level.… No doubt, there are grasping landlords, but we believe there are far more who are not.
Does the hon. Member not agree that the facts have not borne out the views of the Francis Committee on many matters, and on the question to which the hon. Member is referring it also expressed some doubts about some contrary points and these have not come out in the hon. Member's argument.

Mr. Rossi: The hon. Gentleman quarrels with the Francis Report, because he does not agree with the statement that not all landlords are grasping. The conclusions of the Milner Holland Report, the result of an investigation ordered by a Conservative Government into what was known as Rachmanism, were the same—that most tenants were happy with their landlords. There was a small percentage of black sheep among the landlords, as there are in every section of the community, that exploited a situation of control. But it is the control that creates the Rachman, just as it is rationing that creates the black marketeer. But that is something that a Socialist, wedded to


the whole concept of State intervention and control cannot begin to understand.
The Government are not concerned with the welfare of tenants. They are not concerned with the provision of housing accommodation. The whole of their legislation acts contrary to that. They wish to smash the private landlord, as the Minister has said time and time again. They gloat over the fact that the rented sector has diminished over the years. They introduced measures such as the Act on furnished rent to make it uneconomical and impracticable for landlords to let, so that they withdrew the accommodation from the market. Today we see hundreds of constituents, young people in particular, unable to find homes. The Government make it uneconomical for landlords to remain in business, and at the same time make it possible for local authorities to have vast public sums at their disposal, our money, taxpayers' money, to buy up these properties on the cheap.

Mr. Freeson: The indicative evidence so far coming to the Department is that during the past year there has been a smaller decline in rented accommodation than in the previous year, when the Tory Government were in power.

Mr. Rossi: I should like the Minister to place that evidence in the Library. It is not the evidence I have received in speaking to my constituents, week in and week out, and it is not the evidence of my hon. Friends.
The Bill is a cynical measure, like all the measures of this Government, to seek to use the hardship of people in order to carry out their strategy, the social engineering of our society, the changing of our society into a Socialist State. As long as we have the power to resist, we shall resist. I ask my hon. Friends to support me.

Mr. Kaufman: With the leave of the House, I should like to reply.
It is like old times for the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) to be swapping quotations from the Francis Report with us. All devils will quote that scripture for their particular purpose.
I regret that the hon. Gentleman found it necessary to use the kind of language he did in accusing us of not having the

welfare of tenants at heart. One of the most satisfying moments for me since the last election was when I met a group of old-age pensioners living in run-down controlled property and was able to tell them that because of the Bill their rent would not go up and that their houses would not go out of control unless the landlord carried out repairs. That is the difference between the two sides of the House. We insist on certain standards from landlords.
The clause is an integral part of our attitude. The hon. Gentleman omitted to point out that the Bill allows an increase in rent provided the landlord carries out repairs. He is asking for the landlord to be allowed to take his property out of control without so much as doing the tiniest repair to any houses which he owns. He talked about our creating a Socialist State. If a Socialist State means a landlord doing repairs, I am a Socialist any day of the week.

Mr. Rossi: I did not refer to Clause 11 because I did not think I should be in order to do so. It provides for 12½ per cent. of the cost of repairs and maintenance, but that is spread over eight years. The Minister is living in cloud-cuckoo-land if he thinks that a landlord will spend £500 or £1,000 today, borrowing the money at 14, 15, 16 or even 17 per cent., to have it repaid to him over a period of eight years. Landlords simply will not do it, and these houses will not be repaired. The hon. Gentleman just does not understand human nature. That is why he will not solve the country's housing problem.

Mr. Molloy: What the House has to decide is whether the dukes and the marquesses in the other place have some knowledge or idea of the problems which ordinary people in, for example, Greater London have to face with regard to their accommodation and whether it is justified in giving help to someone who might be a very good landlord—normally associated with the Conservative Party—who is prepared to put money into an exercise to rid the property he owns of rats and mice.
We on this side are almost saying that if the landlord does that in some of these vile slums he will, therefore, be entitled to increase his rent. I am bound


to say I am not sure whether I agree with this side of the House or with the opposite side, but I have to say this. If there has ever been an example of total hypocrisy, we have had it tonight from the Opposition benches, particularly from Opposition Front Bench spokesmen who supported Conservative legislation which did not allow people in London who happened to be bus drivers, gas workers, electricians or bracklayers to have an increase in their salaries which might then have reflected their possibility to pay their landlords extra money for the rents they were trying to impose.
We all know full well of the tragedy that afflicted the capital city of our country. I ask some right hon. and hon. Members opposite who have a little more understanding, and some of whom are involved in local government, to realise that some of us were involved with people living in vile, rat-ridden slums five miles from Buckingham Palace and the House of Commons. They would say to us "It is quite unreasonable that on the one hand we should not be allowed to apply for wage increases, but it is quite all right on the other hand for the faceless people who own these disgusting slums to attempt to put up our rents."
Both sides of the House know full well what sort of people would want to cash in on that situation. I suggest that there are Conservative Members, as well as Members on this side, who would not like the sort of people who might want to cash in on that sort of situation to win the day.
What is required, therefore, is a realisation on both sides of the House that it is very difficult to tell ordinary people who might live in Hammersmith, Fulham, Bermondsey or Acton that houses which they have lived in, and in which in some cases their forefathers lived—[Interruption.] I know this is a difficult argument for Opposition Members. Where those tenants have paid in rent over and above the entire cost of the house there should now be a rational, reasonable and civilised assessment of their position.
Conservative Members will never be able to convince ordinary people that the dukes and the earls in the other place

have a right to tell tenants that the other place has a right to affect legislation to impose an unjust burden on them. This is not so much a question between the two sides of the House of Commons, but it gives us a chance on behalf of the ordinary people of the nation to unite in asserting the superiority of the House of Commons.

12.30 a.m.

Mr. Stephen Ross: The longer I hear some Labour Members the more deplorable I believe their case to be. The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) may know the London situation, but I hope he will accept that in many rural constituencies there are good private landlords. Recently an old lady of 98 in my constituency wrote to me saying that she owned two properties in the Isle of Wight which brought her in about £1 a week. She was hoping to have a little money before her days were at an end.
I suggest that the hon. Member for Ealing, North should read the debates which were held in the other place, and particularly the speech of Lord Middleton. We are talking of properties right down at the bottom end of the scale, not of Rachmans charging rents up in the clouds. We are talking of figures as low as 50p and as high as £2 only. We are hoping that if people can get a proper return on their properties they may be able to put them in order. If not, the local authorities can step in and buy them. But local authorities certainly are not buying up properties in my constituency at the moment. Indeed, the situation goes from bad to worse.
We have supported the Government generally on this Bill. We felt it right that local authorities should control the fixing of rents. We thought that it was imaginative to have tenant co-operatives. We also think that the idea of rehabilitation areas is correct within these provisions. But do not let us bury our heads in the sand. Let us give a chance to private landlords to earn money with which to put their properties in order. I believe that we should accept the Lords amendment.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 273, Noes 216.

Division No. 104.]
AYES
[11.49 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Cohen, Stanley
George, Bruce


Adley, Robert
Coleman, Donald
Gilbert, Dr John


Alison, Michael
Conlan, Bernard
Ginsburg, David


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Glyn Dr Alan


Anderson, Donald
Corbett, Robin
Golding, John


Archer, Feter
Corrie, John
Goodhew, Victor


Armstrong, Ernest
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Goodlad, Alastair


Ashley, Jack
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Gorst, John


Ashton, Joe
Critchley, Julian
Gould, Bryan


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Cronin, John
Gourlay, Harry


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)


Atkinson, Norman
Crowder, F. P.
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)


Awdry, Daniel
Cryer, Bob
Graham, Ted


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)


Banks, Robert
Dalyell, Tarn
Gray, Hamish


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel
Davidson, Arthur
Grieve, Percy


Bates, Alf
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Grist, Ian


Bean, R. E.
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Grocott, Bruce


Beith, A. J.
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Hall-Davis, A. G. P.


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Deakins, Eric
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Benyon, W.
Delargy, Hugh
Hamling, William


Berry, Hon Anthony
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Hampson Dr Keith


Bidwell, Sydney
Dempsey, James
Hannam, John


Biffen, John
Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Hardy, Peter


Biggs-Davison, John
Doig, Peter
Harper, Joseph


Bishop, E. S.
Dormand, J. D.
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)


Blaker, Peter
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Drayson, Burnaby
Hart, Rt Hon Judith


Boardman, H.
Dunn, James A.
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Body, Richard
Dunnett, Jack
Hatton, Frank


Booth, Albert
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Havers, Sir Michael


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Durant, Tony
Hayman Mrs Helens


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Eadie, Alex
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Edelman, Maurice
Heffer, Eric S.


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Heseltine, Michael


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Edge, Geoff
Holland, Philip


Bradley, Tom
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hooley, Frank


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Horam, John


Brittan, Leon
Elliott, Sir William
Hordern, Peter


Brotherton, Michael
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Howell David (Guildford)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
English, Michael
Ho well, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)


Brown, Hugh D. (Proven)
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Huckfield, Les


Buchanan, Richard
Eyre, Reginald
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Budgen, Nick
Fairgrieve, Russell
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N)


Bulmer, Esmond
Farr, John
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Burden, F. A.
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Hunt, John


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Hunter, Adam


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Fletcher Alex (Edinburgh N)
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Campbell, Ian
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)


Cant, R. B.
Fookes, Miss Janet
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)


Carmichael, Neil
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)


Carter, Ray
Ford, Ben
James, David


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Forrester, John
Janner, Greville


Cartwright, John
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Fox, Marcus
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Channon, Paul
Freeson, Reginald
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)


Churchill, W. S.
Freud Clement
Jessel, Toby


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Fry, Peter
John, Brynmor


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Cockcroft, John
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)




Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Morgan, Geraint
Sinclair, Sir George


Jopling, Michael
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Skeet, T. H. H.


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Small, William


Judd, Frank
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Kaufman, Gerald
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Kelley, Richard
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Speed, Keith


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Moyle, Roland
Spence, John


Kimball, Marcus
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Sproat, Iain


Kltson, Sir Timothy
Neave, Airey
Stainton, Keith


Lamborn, Harry
Nelson, Anthony
Stallard, A. W.


Lamond, James
Neubert, Michael
Stanley, John


Lamont, Norman
Ogden, Eric
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Lane, David
O'Halloran, Michael
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Langford-Holt, Sir John
O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Latham, Michael (Melton)
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Lawson, Nigel
Orbach, Maurice
Stoddart, David


Leadbitter, Ted
Osborn, John
Stott, Roger


Le Merchant, Spencer
Owen, Dr David
Stradling Thomas, J.


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Padley, Walter
Strang, Gavin


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Page, John (Harrow West)
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Palmer, Arthur
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Park, George
Swain, Thomas


Lipton, Marcus
Parker, John
Tapsell, Peter


Lloyd, Ian
Parry, Robert
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Lomas, Kenneth
Pendry, Tom
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Luard, Evan
Penhaligon, David
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Luce, Richard
Percival, Ian
Temple-Morris, Peter


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Perry, Ernest
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Phipps, Dr Colin
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


McCartney, Hugh
Prescott, John
Tierney, Sydney


McCrindle, Robert
Price, William (Rugby)
Tinn, James


McElhone, Frank
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Tomlinson, John


Macfarlane, Neil
Radice, Giles
Torney, Tom


MacFarquhar, Roderick
Raison, Timothy
Trotter, Neville


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Mackenzie, Gregor
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Mackintosh, John P.
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Wakeham, John


Maclennan, Robert
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Richardson, Miss Jo
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Ridsdale, Julian
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Rifkind, Malcolm
Ward, Michael


Magee, Bryan
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Weatherill, Bernard


Mahon, Simon
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Weitzman, David


Marks, Kenneth
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Wells, John


Marquand, David
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
White, James (Pollok)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Roper, John
Whitehead, Phillip


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Rose, Paul B.
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Mates, Michael
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Whitlock, William


Mather, Carol
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilm' nock)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Mawby, Ray
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Mayhew, Patrick
Rowlands, Ted
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Meacher, Michael
Ryman, John
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Sainsbury, Tim
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Sandelson, Neville
Winterton, Nicholas


Millan, Brucs
Scott-Hopkins, James
Woodall, Alec


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kllbride)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Woof, Robert


Mills, Peter
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Moate, Roger
Shelton, William (Streatham)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Monro, Hector
Shepherd, Colin
Younger, Hon George


Montgomery, Fergus
Shersby, Michael



Moonman, Eric
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Moore, John (Croydon C)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Mr. Laurie Pavitt and


More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Silvester, Fred
Mr. John Ellis.




NOES


Allaun, Frank
Flannery, Martin
Mikardo, Ian


Buchan, Norman
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)


Canavan, Dennis
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Molloy, William


Clemitson, Ivor
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Newens, Stanley


Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen
Kinnock, Neil
Noble, Mike


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Lambie, David
Ovenden, John


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Price C. (Lewisham W)


Evans John (Newton)
Lee, John
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Faulds, Andrew
Madden, Max
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Mendelson, John
Rodgers, George (Chorley)







Rooker, J. W.
Snape, Peter
Weetch, Ken


Sedgemore, Brian
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Selby, Harry
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)



Silverman, Julius
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Skinner, Dennis
Watkinson, John
Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann and




Mr. George Cunningham.

Division No. 105.]
AYES
[12.32 a.m.


Abse, Leo
English, Michael
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Allaun, Frank
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Anderson, Donald
Evans John (Newton)
Mackenzie, Gregor


Archer, Peter
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Maclennan, Robert


Armstrong, Ernest
Faulds, Andrew
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Ashley, Jack
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Madden, Max


Ashton, Joe
Flannery, Martin
Magee, Bryan


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mahon, Simon


Atkinson, Norman
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Marks, Kenneth


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Marquand, David


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Ford, Ben
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel
Forrester, John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Bates, Alf
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Meacher, Michael


Bean, R. E.
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Freeson, Reginald
Mendelson, John


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Mikardo, Ian


Bidwell, Sydney
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Millan, Bruce


Bishop, E. S.
George, Bruce
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Gilbert, Dr John
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)


Boardman, H.
Ginsburg, David
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)


Booth, Albert
Golding, John
Molloy, William


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Gould, Bryan
Moonman, Eric


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Gourlay, Harry
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Graham, Ted
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Bradley, Tom
Grocott, Bruce
Moyle, Roland


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Hamling, William
Newens, Stanley


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Hardy, Peter
Noble, Mike


Buchan, Norman
Harper, Joseph
Ogden, Eric


Buchanan, Richard
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
O'Halloran, Michael


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Hatton, Frank
Orbach, Maurice


Campbell, Ian
Hayman Mrs Helene
Ovenden, John


Canavan, Dennis
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Owen, Dr David


Cant, R. B.
Heffer, Eric S.
Padley, Walter


Carmichael, Neil
Horam, John
Palmer, Arthur


Carter, Ray
Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Park, George


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Parker, John


Cartwright, John
Huckfield, Les
Parry, Robert


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Pendry, Tom


Clemitson, Ivor
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Perry, Ernest


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N)
Phipps, Dr Colin


Cohen, Stanley
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Coleman, Donald
Hunter, Adam
Prescott, John


Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Price C. (Lewisham W)


Conlan, Bernard
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Price, William (Rugby)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Radice, Giles


Corbett, Robin
Janner, Greville
Richardson, Miss Jo


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Craigen. J. M. (Maryhill)
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Cronin, John
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Cryer, Bob
John, Brynmor
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Rooker, J. W.


Cunningham, Dr J, (Whiteh)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Roper, John


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Rose, Paul B.


Davidson, Arthur
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilm'nock)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rowlands, Ted


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Judd, Frank
Ryman, John


Davies, Ifor (Cower)
Kaufman, Gerald
Sandelson, Neville


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Kelley, Richard
Sedgemore, Brian


Deakins, Eric
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Selby, Harry


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Kinnock, Neil
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Lambie, David
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Delargy, Hugh
Lamborn, Harry
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Lamond, James
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Dempsey, James
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Doig, Peter
Leadbitter, Ted
Silverman, Julius


Dormand, J. D.
Lee, John
Skinner, Dennis


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Small, William


Dunn, James A.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Dunnett, Jack
Lipton, Marcus
Snape, Peter


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Luard, Evan
Spearing, Nigel


Eadie, Alex
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Spriggs, Leslie


Edelman, Maurice
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Stallard, A. W.


Edge, Geoff
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
McCartney, Hugh
Stott, Roger


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
McElhone, Frank
Strang, Gavin







Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Swain, Thomas
Ward, Michael
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Watkinson, John
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Weetch, Ken
Woodall, Alec


Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Weitzman, David
Woof, Robert


Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Wellbeloved, James
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
White, Frank R. (Bury)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Tierney, Sydney
White, James (Pollok)



Tinn, James
Whitehead, Phillip
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Tomlinson, John
Whitlock, William
Mr. Laurie Pavitt and


Torney, Tom
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Mr. David Stoddart.


Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)



Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)





NOES


Adley, Robert
Glyn Dr Alan
Moate, Roger


Aitken, Jonathan
Goodhart, Philip
Monro, Hector


Alison, Michael
Goodhew, Victor
Montgomery, Fergus


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Goodlad, Alastair
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Gorst, John
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Awdry, Daniel
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral


Baker, Kenneth
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)


Banks, Robert
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Beith, A. J.
Gray, Hamish
Morrison, Hon Paler (Chester)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Grieve, Percy
Mudd, David


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Griffiths, Eldon
Neave, Airey


Berry, Hon Anthony
Grist, Ian
Nelson, Anthony


Biffen, John
Hall, Sir John
Neubert, Michael


Biggs-Davison, John
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Newton, Tony


Blaker, Peter
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Nott, John


Body, Richard
Hampson Dr Keith
Onslow, Cranley


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hannam, John
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Osborn, John


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Hastings, Stephen
Page, John (Harrow West)


Brittan, Leon
Havers, Sir Michael
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Brotherton, Michael
Hayhoe, Barney
Pattie, Geoffrey


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Heseltine, Michael
Penhaligon, David


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hicks, Robert
Percival, Ian


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Higgins, Terence L.
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Budgen, Nick
Holland, Philip
Pink, R. Bonner


Bulmer, Esmond
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Burden, F. A.
Howell David (Guildford)
Raison, Timothy


Carlisle, Mark
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Rathbone, Tim


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hunt, John
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Channon, Paul
Hurd Douglas
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Churchill, W. S.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Clark, William (Croydon S)
James, David
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Clegg, Walter
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Cockcroft, John
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Rossi Hugh (Hornsey)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Jopling, Michael
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Cope, John
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Sainsbury, Tim


Corrie, John
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Costain, A. P.
Kimball, Marcus
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Critchley, Julian
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Crouch, David
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Shepherd, Colin


Crowder, F. P.
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Shersby, Michael


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Lamont, Norman
Silvester, Fred


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Lane, David
Sims, Roger


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Sinclair, Sir George


Drayson, Burnaby
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Durant, Tony
Lawrence, Ivan
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Dykes, Hugh
Lawson, Nigel
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Le Marchant, Spencer
Speed, Keith


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Elliott, Sir William
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Sproat, Iain


Emery, Peter
Luce, Richard
Stainton, Keith


Eyre, Reginald
Macfarlane, Neil
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fairbairn, Nicholas
MacGregor, John
Stanley, John


Fairgrieve, Russell
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Farr, John
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Mates, Michael
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Mather, Carol
Stokes, John


Fletcher Alex (Edinburgh N)
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Stradling Thomas, J.


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mawby, Ray
Tapsell, Peter


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Fox, Marcus
Mayhew, Patrick
Tebbit, Norman


Freud Clement
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Temple-Morris, Peter


Fry, Peter
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Mills, Peter
Townsend, Cyril D.


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Trotter, Neville







Tugendhat, Christopher
Warren, Kenneth
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


van Straubenzee, W. R.
Weatherill, Bernard
Younger, Hon George


Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Wells, John



Viggers, Peter
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Wakeham, John
Winterton, Nicholas
Mr, W, Benyon and


Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Wood, Rt Hon Richard
Mr. Adam Butler.


Wall, Patrick

Lords amendement disagreed to.

Mr. Michael Latham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I seek your guidance about the correcting of Hansard when an error has been made, although undoubtedly in good faith? The Under-Secretary said that the clause that we have just discussed went through Committee on the nod. In fact, the debates on it filled many columns of Hansard and there was a Division. It may be possible for the Under-Secretary to say whether it will be possible for him to make that correction.

Mr. Kaufman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that the hon. Member would not wish me to make heavy weather of it. Everybody makes an error from time to time. I made an error on this occasion, and I ask the House's indulgence.

Clause 11

INCREASES OF RENT UNDER CONTROLLED TENANCY PERMITTED TOWARDS COST OF REPAIRS

Lords Amendment: No. 14, in page 8, line 32, leave out "or" and insert:
unless they were completed on or after 6th April 1973.
( ) This section does not apply to repairs".

Mr. Freeson: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This amendment was put down following Opposition representations and discussions during the Bill's passage through this House. It was pointed out that some landlords would have undertaken repairs to their property in anticipation of decontrol under the general programme of decontrol in the Housing Finance Act.
I accepted that landlords who had repaired their property in this way should be entitled to some recompense for their expenditure. Subject to the introduction of a provision to enable tenants to seek

evidence in respect of which the 12½ per cent. increase is claimed. I expressed my willingness to make the provision retrospective for one year. In response to further representations from, and after correspondence with, the Opposition the Government have decided that they will accept retrospection to the beginning of the tax year 1973–4, this being a date from which it can reasonably be expected that documentary evidence of the cost of repairs will be available if required.
The effect of this amendment, therefore, is that repairs to property that is let on controlled tenancies that have been completed on or after 6th April 1973 will come within the 12½ per cent. rent increase provision.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 15, in page 9, line 18, at end insert:
(11) If—

(a) the landlord serves a notice of increase of rent by virtue of this section, and
(b) the tenant requests him in writing, not later than three months after service of the notice, to supply him with information showing how he has calculated the expenditure on the repairs,

it shall be the landlord's duty, not later than one month after the date of the request, to supply the tenant with copies of such accounts, receipts and other documents as are reasonably necessary for that purpose.
(12) A request under subsection (11) above shall be deemed to be duly made to a landlord if it is served on any agent of the landlord named as such in a rent book or other similar document, or on the person who receives the rent on behalf of the landlord; and it shall be the duty of a person on whom a request is so served to forward it as soon as may be to the landlord.
(13) If any person without reasonable excuse fails to perform any duty imposed on him by subsection (11) or (12) above, he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £200.

12.45 a.m.

Mr. Kaufman: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): With this amendment it will


be convenient to discuss Lords Amendment No. 37, in Schedule 4, page 28, line 6, at end insert:
5. Where an offence under section 11(13) above which has been committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of, a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or any person who was purporting to act in any such capacity, he, as well as the body corporate, shall be guilty of that offence and be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
6. Where the affairs of a body corporate are managed by its members, paragraph 5 above shall apply in relation to the acts and defaults of a member in connection with his functions of management as if he were a director of the body corporate.

Mr. Kaufman: The new subsections contained in Amendment No. 15 are designed to give the tenant from whom a 12½ per cent. a year increase on account of repairs has been demanded the right to require documentary evidence of the costs on which the increase was calculated. They make it an offence for a landlord or his agent not to comply with his duty to provide this information.
This provision was requested by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun). We are happy to have been able to insert it in the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause B

EXTENSION OF PART II OF HOUSING FINANCE ACT 1972 TO ALMSPEOPLE

Lords Amendment: No. 16, after Clause 11, in page 9, line 18, at end insert new Clause B:
B. After section 19 of the Housing Finance Act 1972 there shall be inserted the following section:—

'Allowances for almspeople

19A.—(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, it shall be the duty of every local authority, on and after such date as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint, to treat as private tenants, except to the extent that regulations under subsection (4) below provide to the contrary, persons who occupy as their homes almshouse accommodation in the authority's area, and accordingly to make provision in their allowance scheme for granting them allowances, calculated in accordance with the scheme by reference to their needs and their resources, towards their almshouse contributions.

(2) Section 25 below shall not apply in relation to such persons, and in Schedule 3 to this Act "rent which is eligible to be met by a rebate or an allowance" means, in relation to such persons, the amount of their almshouse contributions.

(3) Regulations made by the Secretary of State with the consent of the Treasury may provide—

(a) that any enactment contained in this Part of this Act, other than this section and section 25 below, and any instrument made under any such enactment, and
(b) any enactment contained in Schedule 3 or 4 to this Act and any instrument made under either of those Schedules,

shall have effect, so far as the Secretary of State considers appropriate for giving effect to this section, subject to such exceptions or modifications as may be specified in the regulations.

(4) Regulations under subsection (3) above shall be made by statutory instrument and shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'"

Mr. Freeson: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This new clause is the result of Government amendments tabled in the other place following representations by my hon. Friends the Members for Southampton, Test (Mr. Gould) and Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell) on Second Reading of the Bill as originally introduced.
The purpose of this new clause is to enable persons who occupy almshouse accommodation as their homes to become eligible for allowances under Part II of the Housing Finance Act 1972 towards the contributions they pay. These persons are not eligible at present because the 1972 Act requires, broadly speaking, that the grant of a rent allowance can only be made to persons who are tenants of the accommodation they occupy as their homes, and who also pay rent for that accommodation. Occupants of almshouse accommodation—almspeople—are neither tenants nor do they pay rent as such in law.
In view of rising costs and of contributions—the equivalent of rents—many almspeople may now be at a considerable disadvantage financially compared with tenants with similar incomes, paying similar amounts in rent. Of the estimated 25,000 occupants of almshouse accommodation in England or Wales, we estimate that about 5,000 are paying contributions in respect of which they might be eligible to claim allowances under this new clause.


The remaining almspeople have lower incomes or resources and so are eligible to receive help towards their rent from supplementary benefit.
Because of the need to adapt the existing legislation for rent allowances to the particular situation of almspeople who make contributions rather than pay rent as such, this provision is basically a twofold enabling power. First, it provides for the Secretary of State to make the necessary adapting regulations. Second, it provides for this extension of eligibilty for allowances to almspeople to come into force on a date approved by the Secretary of State. This will allow the necessary time to prepare the regulations and lay them before Parliament.
This extension of the rent allowance system will be valuable in its small way in helping needy persons with their accommodation costs.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: I thank my hon. Friend for listening to the representations that he received from my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Gould) and myself on this point. The new clause will remove a serious anomaly which recently came to light in certain almshouses in Southampton where rents were being increased by £2·40 per week, but the tenants were unable to claim or receive rent allowances.
Will my hon. Friend indicate when the necessary regulations will come into operation, as this is an urgent matter? Large numbers of people have already had rent, or contribution, increases. It is, therefore, important that, as early as pos-

"1957 5 &amp; 6
The Housing Act 1957.
Section 79.


Eliz. 2. c. 56.

Section 143.


1970 c. 44.
The Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970.
In section 10, the words from "Central" to "of the" in the third place where those words occur."

Mr. Freeson: On 15th January, in reply to a Question from the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham), I indicated that I had undertaken a review of the position of the Central Housing Advisory Committee which the Minister is required to appoint, under the provisions now in Section 143 of the Housing Act 1957 and had come to the conclusion that it should cease to exist, its work having been taken over by more effective

sible, they shall be eligible for rent allowances so that they can be brought into line with other people in similar situations.

Mr. Freeson: I hope that I may have the leave of the House to reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell).
I am seized of the point made by my hon. Friend and by our colleague the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Gould) on Second Reading. I should have liked to have the legislation drafted for inclusion in the Bill, but that has not been possible because of rather complex aspects of getting such changes. For that reason we decided to have an enabling power. We shall seek to operate these provisions as soon as we can, but I cannot give an exact date for that.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to. [Special entry.]

New Clause C

ABOLITION OF CENTRAL HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Lords Amendment: No. 17, in page 9, line 18, at end insert new Clause C:
C. Section 143 of the Housing Act 1957 (provision for appointment and functions of Central Housing Advisory Committee) is repealed, and the Committee shall accordingly cease to exist.

Mr. Freeson: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords Amendment No. 55, in page 35, line 15, at end insert:

methods of consultation. I said then that we should seek an opportunity to deal with this matter in legislation, and that is what the new clause seeks to do.

Mr. Michael Latham: As the Minister was courteous enough to mention me, and also the answer which he gave me announcing this decision a few weeks ago, perhaps I ought to say something on the subject.
I was a little sorry that the Minister did not tonight, although he did in reply to my Question, pay tribute to the work of the Central Housing Advisory Committee. This committee has been in existence at least since the Housing Act 1936, and possibly before that, and has produced many substantial reports which have done a great deal in the furtherance of housing policy and discussions.
The Minister said in support of his request to the House to agree with the Lords amendment that there were many other ways of consulting about housing. That is true, and it would be out of order to proceed with that matter further. Suffice it to say that in the present stage of housing policy, when there are so many complexities and difficulties, it is an odd time to abolish a body which has done a great deal of useful work in furthering the housing discussion.
The Minister must make his own decision on whether to abolish one body rather than another and decide about the method of consultation which he chooses to use, but it is unfortunate that he did not from the Dispatch Box tonight pay a more copious tribute to the work done by the Central Housing Advisory Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 14

INTERPRETATION

Lords Amendment: No. 18, in page 10, line 16, leave out "18(1)" and insert "38(1)".

This is a drafting amendment to correct a printing mistake.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 15

CITATION ETC.

Lords Amendment: No. 19A, in page 12, line 15, leave out from beginning to "together" in line 16 and insert:
(6) The following provisions of this Act, namely—
section 2, except subsections (4A) to (4E);

subsections (7) and (10) below;
Part II of Schedule 1, together with subsection (3) above so far as it relates to that Part;
paragraph 13, 22 and 23 of that Schedule:
paragraphs 3 and 5 of Schedule 5;".

Mr. Kaufman: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendments.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to take Lords Amendments Nos. 20 and 21.

Mr. Kaufman: Amendments 19A and 20 deal with the commencement provisions of the Bill. Their effect is to add a number of minor provisions to the list of those already in the Bill which are to come into force on Royal Assent, instead of two weeks later.
Amendment 21 is merely a drafting amendment to leave out an unnecessary reference in subsection (8) to subsection (7).

Questions put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 22, in page 12, line 31, leave out from "Act" to end of line 33, and insert:
extends to the Isles of Scilly, except—
section 2;
sections 8 to 11;
Schedules 2 to 4.

Mr. Kaufman: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take the following:
Government amendment to Lords Amendment No. 22.
Lords Amendments: No. 43. in Schedule 5, page 29, line 24, leave out from "to" to end of line 32 and insert:
the following provisions of the Housing Rents and Subsidies Act 1975, namely—
section 2 (reserve power to limit rents);
section 8 and Schedule 2 (phasing of rent increases for private sector housing);
section 9 and Schedule 3 (certain amenities to be disregarded in determining fair rent);
section 11 and Schedule 4 (increases of rent under controlled tenancy permitted towards cost of repairs).



Line 8, at end insert Government amendments to Lords Amendment No. 43:
'Section 10 (termination of decontrol of tenancies by refernce to rateable value)'.
Line 10, at end insert:
'together with section 15(5), so far as it relates to the repeals contained in Part III of Schedule 6'.

Mr. Kaufman: These Lords amendments deal with the application of the Bill to the Isles of Scilly. They add to the list of the Bill's provisions which extend to the Isles without the need for an order, to take account of the additional private sector provisions which were added to the Bill on Report.
The Government amendments are consequential on the re-insertion of Clause 10.

Read a Second time.

Amendment to the Lords amendment made: at end add:
'together with subsection (5) above so far as it relates to the repeals contained in Part III of Schedule 6.'.—[Mr. Kaufman.]

Lords amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 1

RENTS AND SUBSIDIES

Lords Amendment: No. 23, in page 14, line 6, at end insert:
(2A) Subject to sub-paragraph (2B) below, the Secretary of State shall have power to determine that the whole or any part of any rent under a lease payable by a local authority or a new town corporation and debited to their Housing Revenue Account or housing account shall be treated for the purposes of this paragraph as reckonable expenditure attributable to admissible capital costs.
(2B) The Secretary of State may not make a determination under sub-paragraph (2A) above in respect of rent under a lease if a whole year's rent under it was debited to the Housing Revenue Account or housing account for a year previous to the year 1975–76.

Mr. Kaufman: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The effect of this amendment is to give the Secretary of State power to subsidise rent as part of the new capital costs element of housing subsidy.
The power does not apply to rent under a lease if a whole year's rent under that

lease was debited to the housing revenue account or housing account before the year 1975–76. Such rent attracts the basic element of housing subsidy.
Most land acquired for housing purposes is freehold, but there are occasionally circumstances in which land may be acquired for long-term use under a long lease. It is also sometimes convenient for a local authority to acquire property on a short lease—for example, short-life property to help deal with homelessness. Premiums paid on a grant assignment of a lease of such property attract the new capital costs element of housing subsidy. It is therefore right that rent should also do so.

Question nut and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 33, in page 19, line 25, leave out from "The" to end of line 28 and insert:
regulations may authorise a local authority or new town corporation to consult, in connection with the determination of any such question as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (3) above, the president of the panel drawn up under Schedule 5 to the Rent Act 1968 (panels for the constitution of rent assessment committees) for any area in which there is situated a dwelling to which the determination will relate.
( ) The regulations may also—

(a) authorise the local authority or new town corporation, in the case of the president's absence or incapacity, to consult the vice-president or, as the case may be, one of the vice-presidents of the panel; and
(b) authorise the president or any such vice-president to consult, with regard to any matter submitted to him by an authority or corporation in pursuance of the regulations, any of the panel's other members and any of the panel's staff."

Mr. Freeson: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords Amendment No. 39, in page 28, line 19, at end insert:
. The following paragraph shall be added after paragraph 9 of Schedule 5 to that Act (rent assessment committees):—
10. Any reference to remuneration, salaries or allowances in the foregoing provisions of this Schedule includes a reference to remuneration or, as the case may be, salaries or allowances, in respect of functions conferred by regulations under paragraph 15 of Schedule 1 to the Housing Rents and


Subsidies Act 1975; and the reference to expenses in paragraph 9(c) above includes a reference to expenses incurred in the discharge of such functions."

Mr. Freeson: I beg to move, That the House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Michael Latham: Will the Minister tell us what the amendment means?

Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.

Schedule 2

PHASING OF RENT INCREASES

Lords Amendment: No. 35, in page 22, line 10, leave out "a further £0·40"and insert"£0·80 per week".

Mr. Kaufman: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is a purely drafting amendment. Some doubt had been expressed as to whether it was absolutely clear that the "specified sum" in the second year of a period of delay during which a rent is being placed was £0·40 plus £0·40—that is, £0·80. The revised wording makes this absolutely clear.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 4

PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO SECTION 9

Lords Amendment: No. 36, in page 28, line 6, at end insert:
4. The power of the Lord Chancellor under section 106 of the Rent Act 1968 to make rules and give directions for the purpose of giving effect to certain provisions of that Act shall extend to the provisions of section 11 above.

Mr. Kaufman: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is a purely technical amendment, I assure the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham).

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Schedule 5

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Lords Amendment: No. 41, in page 28, line 28, leave out "that Act" and insert "the Rent Act 1968".

Mr. Kaufman: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment merely clarifies an ambiguous reference in Schedule 5(2).

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to, one as amended.

Lords Amendment: No. 44, in page 31, line 14, after "payment" insert:
(a) for paragraph (d) of subsection (1) there shall be substituted the following paragraph:—
(d) the carrying out of any improvement to the dwelling or of redevelopment on the land by a housing association which has previously acquired the land and at the date of the displacement either is registered or falls within section 18(1)(a) of the Housing Act 1974 (housing associations specified in orders under section 80 of the Housing Finance Act 1972 or paragraph 23 of Schedule 1 to the Housing Rents and Subsidies Act 1975);
(b) at the end of subsection (2) there shall be added (but not as part of paragraph (b)) the words "and in a case within subsection (1)(d) above, unless the displacement occurred on or after 31st July 1974 (on which date the Housing Act 1974 was passed)";
(c)".

Mr. Kaufman: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we are to discuss at the same time Lords Amendments Nos. 45, 58 and 59.

Mr. Kaufman: These amendments widen the scope of the home loss and disturbance payments which are to be made by registered housing associations, when they displace tenants in order to carry out redevelopment or improvement projects.
The Land Compensation Act 1973 provided for home loss payments in Section 29 and disturbance payments in Section 37, and these were extended to tenants of registered housing associations, for the first time, by amendments contained in


the Housing Act 1974. The effect of the 1974 Act amendments was to provide for payments in respect of displacements which took place at a date when the association was registered and also on land which had been acquired at a time when the association was registered. It was not our intention to confine payments to land which was acquired at a time when the association was registered, and we now wish to remove this limitation.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 46, in page 31, line 21, at end insert:
. At the end of section 17 of that Act (loans and grants limited to registered housing associations) there shall be added the following subsection:—
(5) Nothing in subsection (1)(b) above shall prevent a local authority, including a county council, from making loans under section 119(3)(a) of the Housing Act 1957 to an unregistered self-build society, as defined in section 12 above, for the purpose of enabling it to meet the whole or any part of arty expenditure incurred or to be incurred by it in carrying out its objects."

Mr. Kaufman: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The purpose of this amendment is to enable local authorities to make loans under Section 119(3)(a) of the Housing Act 1957 to self-build societies, which have not been registered by the Housing Corporation, on or after 1st April 1975.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No 47, in page 32, line 29, after "payment" insert:
in respect of a relevant contribution".

Mr. Kaufman: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment, we are to discuss also Lords Amendments Nos. 48 and 49.

Mr. Kaufman: These amendments relate to the new subsection (2A) to be inserted into Section 79 of the Housing Act 1974 by paragraph 13 of Schedule 5 to the Bill. They make it clear that the payments to which the new subsection

relates are not only payments in respect of improvement contributions under the 1974 Act but also of contributions towards the cost of improvements, including the provision of standard amenities, which were payable under the Housing Act 1969 or any similar contributions under earlier legislation.
The effect of the provision is that, if such payments had commenced before 1st April 1975, they will continue to be made until the end of their normal term under the appropriate legislation. But if payments had not commenced before 1st April 1975, no payment in respect of relevant contributions will be made, and reckonable expenditure in respect of the improvements for which payments would have been made will count instead for the new capital costs element of housing subsidy under the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 50, in page 33, line 40, at end insert:
. For section 114 of that Act (rehabilitation orders) there shall be substituted the following section:—

'Rehabilitation orders

114.—(1) This section applies to any house comprised in a clearance area under Part III of the Housing Act 1957—

(a) which has been purchased by agreement or compulsorily at any time before 2nd December 1974 under section 43 of the Housing Act 1957, or
(b) which is subject to a compulsory purchase order—

(i) which was made under that section at any time before 2nd December 1974, and
(ii) which, at any time before 2nd March 1975 has been confirmed in accordance with Schedule 3 to the Housing Act 1957; or

(c) which has been included in the clearance area by virtue of section 49 of the Housing Act 1957.

(2) Where any house to which this section applies—

(a) was included in the clearance area by reason of its being unfit for human habitation, and
(b) in the opinion of the local authority is capable of being and ought to be, improved to the full standard,

the local authority may make and submit to the Secretary of State in order (in this section and Schedule 10 below referred to as a 'rehabilitation order') in relation to that house.

(3) In addition to applying to any house to which this section applies, a rehabilitation


order may, if the local authority think fit, be made to apply to any other Part III land.

(4) Schedule 10 to this Act and, subject to paragraph 9 of that Schedule, Schedule 4 to the Housing Act 1957 shall have effect in relation to rehabilitation orders.

(5) On the effective date the local authority shall cease to be subject to any duty to demolish or secure the demolition of buildings on the land imposed by Part III of the Housing Act 1957.

(6) Where by virtue of subsection (5) above a local authority are freed from the duty to demolish or secure the demolition of a house which was included in a clearance area as being unfit for human habitation, the authority shall take such steps as are necessary—

(a) to bring the house up to the full standard, or
(b) where it is not vested in the authority, to ensure that it is brought up to that standard.

(7) A local authority may accept undertakings for the purpose of subsection (6)(b) above from the owner of a house, or any other person who has or will have an interest in a house, concerning works to be carried out to bring it up to the full standard and the time within which they are to be carried out.

(8) In this section and in Schedule 10 below—`
'effective date' means the date on which a rehabilitation order becomes operative;
'full standard' means the standard attained by a dwelling with respect to which the conditions mentioned in section 66(2) of this Act are fulfilled;
'local authority', in relation to land eans the authority who are the local authority for the purposes of Part III of the Housing Act 1957 in relation to that land; and
'Part III land' means—

(a) land in the clearance area, except land subject to a clearance order which has been made and confirmed by virtue of section 44 of the Housing Act 1957, or
(b) land surrounded by or adjoining that area for whose purchase under section 43(2) of the Housing Act 1957 a resolution has been passed (whether or not it has been so purchased), or
(c) land to which the provisions of Part III of that Act apply by virtue of section 49;

and 'house' has the same meaning for the purposes of this section and the Schedule as for those of the said Part III.'
In section 115 of that Act (compensation) for subsection (5)(b) there shall be substituted the following paragraph:—
'(b) the effective date of the rehabilitation order, as defined in section 114 above,'".

Mr. Kaufman: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): With this we are to consider Lords amendment No. 52, in page 33, line 42, at end insert:
The following Schedule shall be substituted for Schedule 10 to that Act (rehabilitation orders):—

SCHEDULE 10

REHABILITATION ORDERS

Introductory

1.—(1) In this Schedule,
notice land" means land in relation to which a notice is required to be served under paragraph 7 below; and
the relevant date", in relation to any land comprised in a rehabilitation order, means the effective date or the date on which confirmation of the order was refused.

(2) The references to the Housing Act 1957 in section 178 of that Act (power to prescribe forms etc.) shall include references to this Schedule.

General

2. A rehabilitation order may be made and confirmed notwithstanding that the effect of the order in excluding any land from a clearance area is to sever that area into two or more separate and distinct areas; and in any such case the provisions of Part III of the Housing Act 1957 relating to the effect of a compulsory purchase order when confirmed, and to the proceedings to be taken after confirmation of such an order, shall apply as if those areas formed one clearance area.

3.—(1) Where a local authority have made a rehabilitation order they shall not until after the relevant date—

(a) serve notice to treat under section 5 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 in respect of any land included in a compulsory purchase order made and confirmed by virtue of section 43 of the Housing Act 1957 which also includes notice land; or
(b) demolish, without the consent of the Secretary of State, any building on notice land.

(2) Where the owner of a house to which section 114 above applies and which was included in the clearance area by reason of its being unfit for human habitation requests the local authority to make a rehabilitation order in respect of the house, and the authority refuse to make an order, they shall give him in writing their reasons for so refusing.

4.—(1) Where—

(a) land included in a compulsory purchase order made and confirmed by virtue of section 43 of the Housing Act 1957 is comprised in a rehabilitation order, and
(b) the rehabilitation order becomes operative in respect of that land, and
(c) no interest in the land has vested in the local authority before the relevant date, and


(d) they have not before the relevant date served a notice to treat in respect of any interest in the land under section 5 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965,

the compulsory purchase order shall cease to have effect in relation to that land on the relevant date, and if the land is included in a clearance area, it shall cease to be so included.

(2) On and after the effective date, in a case where sub-paragraph (1) above does not apply, any compulsory purchase order relating to the land and confirmed by virtue of section 43 of the Housing Act 1957 shall have effect in relation to any interest in the land which at the relevant date has not vested in the authority—

(i) in so far as it relates to a house, as if it had been made and confirmed under Part V of the Housing Act 1957, and
(ii) in so far as it relates to land other than a house, as if it had been made and confirmed under Part VI of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971.

(3) Where a rehabilitation order becomes operative in respect of any land and any interest in that land is vested in the local authority at the relevant date—

(a) any such interest in a house comprised in the order shall be treated as appropriated to the purposes of Part V of the Housing Act 1957, and
(b) any other such interest in the land so comprised shall be treated as appropriated to the purposes of Part VI of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971.

5. Where—

(a) a rehabilitation order becomes operative in respect of any land and
(b) its effect is to exclude from the clearance area any land adjoining a general improvement area (within the meaning of Part II of the Housing Act 1969),

that land shall be included in the general improvement area unless the Secretary of State otherwise directs.

Procedure for making and confirming rehabilitation orders

6. A rehabilitation order shall be made in the prescribed form and shall describe, by reference to a map—

(a) the houses to which it applies and which were included in the clearance area by reason of their being unfit for human habitation, and
(b) the other land to which it applies.

7.—(1) Before submitting a rehabilitation order to the Secretary of State the local authority, except in so far as the Secretary of State directs otherwise—

(a) shall publish in one or more newspapers circulating within their district a notice in the prescribed form stating that such an order has been made and describing the land to which it applies, and naming a place where a copy of the order and its accompanying map may be seen at all reasonable hours, and

(b) shall serve on every such person as is specified in sub-paragraph (2) below, a notice in the prescribed form stating—

(i) the effect of the rehabilitation order,
(ii) that it is about to be submitted to the Secretary of State for confirmation, and
(iii) the time within which and the manner in which objections to the order can be made.

(2) The persons mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(b) above are—

(a) every person on whom notice was served of the making by virtue of section 43 of the Housing Act 1957 of any compulsory purchase order which, at the date of its confirmation, included any land subsequently comprised in the rehabilitation order;
(b) every successor in title of such a person;
(c) every owner, lessee and occupier of Part III land other than a tenant for a month or a period less than a month;
(d) mortgages of Part III land, so far as it is reasonably practicable to ascertain such persons; and
(e) every person on whom notice would have been required to be served under paragraph (c) or (d) above whose interest has been acquired under section 43 of the Housing Act 1957 since the clearance area was declared to be such an area.

(3) A notice under this paragraph shall be accompanied by a statement of the grounds on which the local authority are seeking confirmation of the rehabilitation order.

(4) A notice under this paragraph shall be served in accordance with section 169 of the Housing Act 1957.

8.—(1) If no objection is duly made by any of the persons on whom notices are required to be served under paragraph 7 above, or if all objections so made are withdrawn, the Secretary of State may confirm the order with or without modifications.

(2) If any objection duly made is not withdrawn, the Secretary of State, before confirming the order, shall cause a public local inquiry to be held or afford to any person by whom an objection has been duly made and not withdrawn an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed by the Secretary of State for the purpose.

(3) After considering any objection not withdrawn and the report of the person who held the inquiry or of the person appointed under sub-paragraph (2) above, the Secretary of State may confirm the order with or without modifications.

(4) The Secretary of State may require any person who has made an objection to state the grounds of the objection in writing, and may disregard the objection if he is satisfied that it relates exclusively to matters which can be dealt with by the tribunal by whom any compensation is to be assessed.

(5) The Secretary of State's power to modify a rehabilitation order includes power, subject to sub-paragraph (6) below, to extend it to any notice land.

(6) The Secretary of State shall not extend the application of a rehabilitation order to any land unless he has served on the following persons, namely—

(a) the local authority who made the rehabilitation order,
(b) every owner, lessee and occupier of that land, except a tenant for a month or a period less than a month, and
(c) so far as it is reasonably practicable to ascertain such persons, on every mortgagee of any such land,

a notice stating the effect of his proposals, and has afforded them an opportunity to make their views known.

9. In the application of Schedule 4 to the Housing Act 1957 to rehabilitation orders, it shall have effect as if—

(a) every reference to a compulsory purchase order included a reference to a rehabilitation order;
(b) every reference to the Housing Act 1957 were a reference to this Act; and
(c) there were added, at the end of paragraph 1, the words "and every person on whom the Secretary of State served notice under Schedule 10 to the Housing Act 1974.""

With this we may also consider Lords Amendment No. 57, in page 35, column 3, leave out lines 35 to 37.

Mr. Kaufman: We introduced in the Housing Act 1974 a power whereby authorities could change their minds and rehabilitate houses scheduled for demolition under slum clearance compulsory purchase orders. The relevant provisions were Section 114 and Schedule 10, which empowered authorities to make a rehabilitation order in respect of any houses in a compulsory purchase order confirmed before three months after the coming into operation of that Act. The rehabilitation order would, if confirmed by the Secretary of State, revoke the CPO in respect of any property not yet acquired, would release them from the duty to demolish any property already acquired, and would require them to achieve the rehabilitation of the unfit houses included in the rehabilitation order.
In the light of subsequent examination it is clear that there are certain ambiguities in the present provision that should be removed. We are seeking to take the opportunity presented by this Bill to remove these ambiguities and clarify the procedure by amending these rehabilitation order provisions. We have come to the conclusion that this can best be achieved by redrafting them. But I can

assure the House that the substance of these provisions remains unchanged.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 51, in page 33, line 40, at end insert:
. In section 119(3) of that Act (option mortgages) for the word "section" in the second place where it occurs, there shall be substituted the word "subsection".

Mr. Kaufman: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The Government had originally envisaged bringing the whole of Section 119 of the Housing Act 1974 into force on a single day. But in the event this has not happened, and there will need to be at least two commencement orders for the section. This amendment therefore provides, for the sake of clarity, that the appointed day for the purpose of the transitional period for existing option mortgages under subsection (3) is the day on which subsection (3) comes into force.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 53, in page 33, line 42, at end insert:
. In Schedule 14 to that Act, in paragraph 2(b) (transitional provision concerning loans by the Housing Corporation) for "(c)" there shall be substituted "(e)".

Mr. Kaufman: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This amendment rectifies an omission in the Housing Act 1974, as amended. It was not recognised at the time Section 17(4) was amended that consequential amendments were required to paragraph 2 of Schedule 14 to the 1974 Act. The amendment rectifies that omission.

Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Schedule 6

REPEALS

Lords Amendment: No. 54, in page 35, leave out lines 1 to 12.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Government amendment to Lords Amendment No. 54—to disagree, formally.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Kaufman.]

Mr. Michael Latham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You are putting this amendment formally, but I think that it is in order to call a separate Division on this matter.

Lords amendment disagreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments to the Bill: Mr. Thomas Cox, Mr. Reginald Freeson, Mr. Gerald Kaufman,

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is in order to call a separate Division, but the amendment has been discussed.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 114, Noes 8.

Division No. 106.]
AYES
[1.09 a.m.


Archer, Peter
Ford, Ben
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Armstrong, Ernest
Forrester, John
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Newens, Stanley


Bates, Alf
Freeson, Reginald
Noble, Mike


Bean, R. E.
Golding, John
Ovenden, John


Bishop, E. S.
Graham, Ted
Palmer, Arthur


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Grocott, Bruce
Parry, Robert


Boardman, H.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Pavitt, Laurie


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Hardy, Peter
Prescott, John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Harper, Joseph
Price C. (Lewisham W)


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Canavan, Dennis
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Cant, R. B.
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Ryman, John


Clemitson, Ivor
John, Brynmor
Sandelson, Neville


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Cohen, Stanley
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen
Judd, Frank
Silverman, Julius


Conlan, Bernard
Kaufman, Gerald
Skinner, Dennis


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Lambie, David
Small, William


Corbett, Robin
Lamond, James
Spearing, Nigel


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Stallard, A. W.


Craigen. J. M. (Maryhill)
Lee, John
Stoddart, David


Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Stott, Roger


Cryer, Bob
McCartney, Hugh
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
McElhone, Frank
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Tinn, James


Dempsey, James
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Dormand, J. D.
Madden, Max
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Magee, Bryan
Ward, Michael


Dunn, James A.
Mahon, Simon
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Marks, Kenneth
Whitehead, Phillip


Edge, Geoff
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Mendelson, John
Wise, Mrs Audrey


English, Michael
Mikardo, Ian
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Millan, Bruce
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Evans John (Newton)
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Mr. Donald Coleman and


Faulds, Andrew
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Miss Margaret Jackson.




NOES


Body, Richard
Cope, John
Mayhew, Patrick


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Hurd Douglas



Budgen, Nick
Mawby, Ray
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Bulmer, Esmond

Mr. Michael Latham and




Mr. Tony Durant.

Mr. Timothy Raison and Mr. Hugh Rossi; three to be the quorum.—[Mr. Freeson.]

To withdraw immediately.

Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

Orders of the Day — PETITION

H. P. Bulmer and Showerings Limited

1.19 a.m.

Mr. Esmond Bulmer: I beg to present the humble petition of Maximilian John Alexandre Thum, a solicitor of the Supreme Court of Judicature, on behalf of H. P. Bulmer, in which company I declare an interest, and Showerings Ltd., who are plaintiffs in a pending action in the High Court of Justice Chancery Division, against J. Bollinger and Champagne Lanson pere et fils. The petition states
that reference is desired to be made at the hearing of the said action to the Official Report of Debates of your Honourable House for the 17th day of October 1950".
As I propose to move a motion in respect of this petition I ask that the petition be read.

The Clerk at the Table: read the petition, which was as follows:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
The Humble Petition of Maximilian John Alexandre Thum, a Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Judicature of 17 Throgmorton Avenue, London, EC2N 2DD on behalf of H. P. Bulmer and Showerings Limited who are Plaintiffs in a pending action in the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Group A, 1970 H. No. 9347 against J. Bollinger and Champagne Lanson pere et fils (sued on behalf of themselves and of all persons who produce wine in the district of France known as the Champagne District and ship such wine to England and Wales), the Defendants to the said action which is listed for hearing in London on the 24th day of February 1975.
Sheweth
First, that the said Plaintiffs claim in the said action declarations that they are entitled to use the expressions "champagne cider" and "champagne perry" upon and in relation to cider and perry respectively provided that such is not contrary to any Government regulation that is in force at the relevant time.
Second, that reference is desired to be made at the hearing of the said action to the Official Report of Debates of your Honourable House for the 17th day of October 1950 in respect of a Motion praying that the Order dated 27th June 1950 entitled the Labelling of Food Order 1950 (S.I. 1950 No. 1061) be annulled, so that the views of Members may be gathered as to the use of the expressions "champagne cider" and "champagne perry".
Wherefore your Petitioner prays that your Honourable House will be graciously pleased

to give leave for reference to be made to the said Official Report of Debate of your Honourable House.
And your Pentitioner, as in duty bound will every pray &amp;c.

Ordered,
That leave be given for reference to be made to the said official Report of Debates of the House.—[Mr. Bulmer.]

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Donald Coleman.]

Orders of the Day — POST OFFICES (CLOSURE)

1.22 a.m.

Mr. Douglas Hurd: It is more than a year since the House last debated the closure of post offices in country areas, on the initiative of the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. Davidson). This is a matter of such importance to the countryside that I am grateful to Mr. Speaker for the opportunity to raise the subject again.
My impression is that during the last year, there has been a continued loss of sub-post offices in the countryside. It can only be an impression, and I hope that the Minister will be able to give us figures to show exactly how the situation has developed. Certainly in my county of Oxfordshire five sub-post offices have closed in the past year and only two have reopened. If Press reports, and reports that I have had from my hon. Friends, are correct, they suggest that there has been a considerable loss in other parts of the country, too. It is hardly necessary to describe the hardship which the closure of sub-post offices can cause to people who live in villages.
There are few people who do not rely on postal services for some part of their lives which is important to them. There is the sale of stamps, of postal orders—particularly important if people do not have a bank account—and the increasing use of Giro for such purposes as rent collection. It is worthy of note that post office is a source of public information. People go into it to read notices on all kinds of matters which may concern them closely but which they do not have the chance to study in detail unless there is a post office handy.
Above all, the post office is used for collecting pensions. It is in paying out pensions that the post office is most valuable to people in villages. There is plenty of evidence of the hardship caused when a sub-post office closes. It is true, as the Post Office has pointed out, that pensions can be collected from other offices and that a pensioner can ask a friend or relative to collect the pension for him or her. The Post Office and the Department of Health and Social Security, whom I have tackled on this, are a little complacent, as if they were dealing with the problem.
I refer to a note I have received from the chairman of a parish council in one of my villages—Beckley—where the post office has closed. He writes:
In a small community such as this the rôle of the post office is vital, especially to old age pensioners who very often cannot afford or are unable to go to adjoining post offices to collect their pensions. They resent the loss of privacy involved in getting a friend to do this for them, and the meeting"—
that is, of the parish council—
felt that in any case this was an invidious and unsatisfactory expedient.
In a similar vein but simpler language an old-age pensioner from another village in my constituency which lost its post office this year wrote to me saying:
Pensioners like to be independent and not have to rely on relatives and friends, so please give us a post office.
No one could fairly blame the Post Office for the closure of sub-post offices. Normally the post office is the village shop, which, for economic reasons, closes down—temporarily or permanently—and the post office services go with it. Villagers have been able to buy things more cheaply at the supermarket five or 10 miles away and the village shop has felt the difference. I am not sure this trend will continue for ever, and I suspect that we may be entering a period when, with more expensive bus fares and dearer petrol, the village shop may take on a new lease of life as customers find that it is no longer cheaper for people to do their shopping in the supermarket.
My complaint against the Post Office is not that it is responsible for the closures but that it reacts in a defensive and unimaginative way towards them. In Beckley, which has 45 old-age pensioners—a large number for a village of

its size—the parish council and I worked out a scheme to deal with the situation when the sub-post office closed last spring. We found a sub-postmaster in a neighbouring village who was willing to come and operate a postal service on Wednesday mornings. We found a room where he could work and an escort who would fetch him and be with him. The last time we devised such a scheme the Post Office agreed to the arrangement. This time it was turned down, even though we had done the homework and set it all up.
The Post Office turned it down not for financial reasons but on grounds of security. It felt that a man coming to provide a service of his own volition would be a risk. It is right to have regard to security. There have been tragic incidents in the past when sub-postmasters and postmistresses have been coshed and robbed. This is one of the facts of life of 1975. But if in this sad world public services are to be withdrawn every time there is a personal risk, there will not be many public services left.
It is reasonable to ask the Post Office to recognise that there is a balance to be struck here. The security argument is valid but it must be weighed against the needs of the village. It should not prevail automatically. I am worried about the security review which the head of the Post Office tells me he is conducting. If that review leads to increased protection, and, better grills, safes and screens for the smaller post office, that is all well and good. I understand that £200 is being given to each post office so that it may purchase its own equipment. But if the review leads to the withdrawal of existing services, it is a damaging retreat, which the Post Office will eventually regret.
So far I have been discussing ways in which the hardship of the temporary disappearance of sub-post offices might be relieved by more flexible and imaginative methods. Perhaps the Minister will say something about the use of vans to deal with the more permanent situation. The Post Offices dismisses these on the ground that they are expensive to run. Any information on that point would be useful.
There is another possibility which I have tried out on the Post Office, namely,


that people should be allowed to provide postal services for fewer than the minimum hours at present insisted upon. Whether such people would be called sub-postmasters or something else is not important. I suspect that quite a number of people, perhaps retired people, would be willing, for one or two mornings a week, to provide a full postal service, but they would not be willing to meet the full conditions now imposed upon a sub-postmaster or sub-postmistress.
I received a letter this morning about a sub-postmistress in Suffolk giving up for this reason. My correspondent says:
She told me that if she could have opened on, say, three mornings, she would have happily continued to provide a service, which is of great value to, admittedly, rather few people in a tiny community".
The Managing Director of the Post Office tells me that he is examining the possibility of rather more flexibility in the hours, so as to increase the number of people willing to provide a postal service in villages. I hope that the Minister can persuade him to press forward speedily with this examination.
I know—and if I did not, the hon. Gentleman would soon remind me—that the Minister has no power to direct the Post Office or to control its decisions in such matters, but he can nudge and encourage it. I hope that he will do so.
What we are talking about is the fabric of the English village, and, for all I know, the Scottish village as well. The traditional fabric includes the church, the chapel, the pub, and the village shop with the post office. These institutions have all changed through the years. They once again have the choice whether to change or retreat.
It would be a great pity if, because of the real difficulties, which we all recognise, the Post Office decided that its future lay only in the towns and cities. More than any other public service, the Post Office still enjoys the liking and esteem of the public. I sometimes have the impression that it looks on this popularity as a liability rather than an asset. I very much hope that, with the Minister's encouragement, the Post Office will look upon that popularity as something not which it should build and not something from which it should retreat. I hope that, with his encouragement, it can respond imaginatively and sympathetically to the

appeals now reaching it from all over our countryside.

1.32 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie): I thank the hon. Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd) for giving me the opportunity to say something about the Post Office and about counter services of the kind of which he has spoken. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for the zeal with which he has expressed his concern. What he has said tonight has been only the end of a long and hard year for him in putting forward constructive suggestions to the Post Office about the matters concerning his constituents. The concern that the hon. Gentleman expressed is one that I and many members of the Government and back benchers on both sides of the House share.
What the hon. Gentleman said about rural life in England is true of rural life in Scotland. As one who comes originally from a small Highland parish, I know what importance we all attached to having a good sub-post office. As the Minister immediately responsible for Post Office affairs, under my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry, I know of the difficulties which people in the hon. Gentleman's part of the world face. Therefore, I welcome the opportunity to say something about the postal services.
The hon. Gentleman stressed what he knew I would say about my statutory rôle as the Under-Secretary with responsibility under the Post Office Act 1969, which established the Post Office as a nationalised industry. In common with other nationalised industries the Post Office is responsible for managing its day-to-day affairs. The Act gave it powers to provide postal services, including counter services, and imposed upon it a duty so to exercise its powers as to meet the social, industrial and commercial needs of the British Isles, while having regard to, among other things, efficiency and economy. Whilst the Secretary of State has certain reserve powers, it is clear that the nature and scale of counter services in a given locality are management matters for the Post Office. Successive Ministers of both parties have refused to intervene on detailed sub-office questions. That may be a matter of regret, but it is a direct and necessary consequence of the changes enacted in


1969. To do otherwise would be to act contrary to the will of the House of Commons, as expressed in the 1969 Act, and to cut across and undermine the authority and competence of the Post Office Board. In other words, my concern and that of my right hon. Friend is not to usurp the functions of the Post Office or to interfere in any way with its day-to-day business but to ensure that it exercises its statutory powers in accordance with the duties laid upon it by the Act.
It is against that background that I want to say a word about Post Office policy with regard to the provision and closure of its sub-post offices. It is very simply that the Post Office seeks to maintain a balance between the reasonable needs of the community on the one hard and the cost, which I regard as important, of meeting those needs on the other hand. The hon. Member referred briefly to this. Translated into practical terms, this means that a post office is not normally opened within a mile of an existing post office in a town or within two miles of an existing office in a rural area.
These criteria are generous, and have been in operation, I am given to understand, since 1948. These standards compare more than favourably with those used in other advanced western nations. Indeed, when I looked through the information provided to me, I was surprised that we provided a service which is very much better, I think, than that of almost any other country in western Europe with the possible exception of West Germany.
Those criteria, however, are not applied rigidly, and many other factors which the hon. Member mentioned in his comments tonight are taken into account. They include the volume of business transacted at the office concerned, the nature and terrain of the area it serves and the availability of local bus services. I emphasise, in view of what the hon. Member said about old people, that full consideration is given to the needs of local residents and retirement pensioners in particular. Well before the event, local authorities and Post Office advisory committees are advised of any impending closures and the reasons for them. Any views which they or other interested parties express are taken fully into account before a final decision is reached.
The hon. Member asked me about the number of post offices which have been closed in recent years, and perhaps I can do no better than give him the figures based on those which have been published in the Post Office accounts over the past five years. In the five years since the Post Office became a public authority, the total number of sub-post offices has fallen from 22,970 in 1969–70 to 22,276 in 1973–74, a net decline, after taking account of new offices opened as well as old offices closed, of only about 0·5 per cent. per annum. Over the 10-year period going back to 1964 the annual rate of net closures is lower still at about 0·4 per cent. This is not a record of which the Post Office necessarily needs to feel embarrassed. In the light of all this, therefore, I can assert that the Post Office acts with a great degree of responsibility in considering whether to close a sub-office.
I can go further and say that the Post Office rarely closes a sub-office unless the postmaster resigns or, as happens, in some cases—when, for example, no replacement can be found—the decision is effectively taken out of the hands of the Post Office. That is what happened in the two cases about which the hon. Member has been concerned over the past year. The Post Office can no longer provide a counter service in these two villages because in one case the postmistress resigned and at Blackthorn the tenant did not wish to continue to manage the office. In both cases, I am assured, the Post Office tried very hard indeed to find a replacement, but to no effect. It is very unfortunate, but I do not think we can blame the Post Office for that, because it really tried exceedingly hard, by advertisements and all other means, to fill these vacancies.
I am aware of the efforts which the hon. Gentleman has made to resolve the difficulties which have arisen in his constituency. He has made a number of suggestions, both to the Post Office over the past year and in the House tonight. I am sure that the Post Office will take note of them. Indeed, I understand that it is already reviewing the question of greater flexibility in the terms and conditions under which it employs sub-postmasters as its agents.
In addition, the hon. Gentleman will know that certain other possibilities exist.


In many rural areas the delivery postman will sell stamps, obtain postal orders, accept letters and parcels and help in many other ways as he goes on his rounds. Postmen have always been helpful in this way and I am sure we are all grateful to them for their friendly help and wish to give them a pat on the back.
The hon. Gentleman was concerned about the question of pensions. The payment of pensions is, of course, a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Security. For my own part, while I understand why some pensioners may not like asking others to draw their pensions, I believe that many have found this to be a convenient and satisfactory alternative to a long journey, and that many others make use of a further facility whereby they can arrange to receive periodic payments through a bank account. Every method has its drawbacks, but I do not think the House would expect the Department of Health and Social Security or the Post Office to incur disproportionate expense in providing counter services for individual pensioners no matter where they happen to live.
I turn to a point which also concerns the hon. Gentleman, namely, the matter of security. I appreciate the scheme which he suggested, and obviously he was concerned that the Post Office did not feel able to accept it. This is a difficult matter, but I have no doubt about it in my mind.
I do not feel that it is for me to comment on all the hon. Gentleman's remarks about security. However, I do not think that we can let some of his comments about security go unchallenged. He seemed to feel that the Post Office placed too much emphasis on this aspect in rejecting the expedients which he had suggested to fill the vacuum left by the departure of the sub-postmaster.
I was grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding the House that in the last year alone three sub-postmasters have been killed during attacks on their offices and there have been a number of other incidents. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would want to give the most serious consideration to the whole question of security and will want to ensure that in future we have no more of these

regrettable incidents. I believe that the Post Office is quite right to be concerned, as I am sure is the hon. Gentleman, about the security of employees and agents. The Post Office has spent a considerable amount of money in helping to improve the security of sub-post offices; and its long experience cannot be lightly dismissed. At the same time I cannot agree with him that the Post Office is adopting a defeatist attitude to the problem of safeguarding the provision of counter services. I understand that one of the aims of the current review of the terms and conditions applicable to sub-postmasters is to see whether part-time services can safely be provided. This is an open question at present, although I am sure the Post Office will examine what has been said in this debate.

Mr. Hurd: I am following the Minister's words closely and with much sympathy. However, does he not agree that there are many other walks of life—there was an example only a fortnight or so ago—where for people performing public services there is no way of guaranteeing them against risks? There are many villages where postal services are provided at present without absolute security. Would it not be better today if, on the grounds of security alone, those services were withdrawn? It is the matter of balance that is important, and it is that balance which we should seek to ensure.

Mr. Mackenzie: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but I have considered the amount involved, and it is a considerable sum. Bearing in mind the sort of experience that we all have of day-to-day postmen and sub-postmasters, for example, I do not think that I would wish to go against the judgment of the Post Office. It is giving the matter a great deal of thought.
I hope that in the time available to me I have been able to reassure the House that the Post Office is doing its best to maintain counter services in rural areas. The difficulties it encounters reflect to some extent the changing pattern of life in the countryside. In many places I understand villagers no longer want to provide enough support to make a local shop viable. This trend must necessarily make it more difficult to find suitable premises for a post office.
I have referred to my awareness of the difficulties faced by people who lose their post office. It is perhaps only in such circumstances that we appreciate the value of the post office. Too often we take it for granted.
I conclude by thanking the sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses throughout the country for the valuable work that they are doing. I know that the hon. Gentleman appreciates their worth, and I have no doubt that despite his own constituency problems he would wish to associate himself with this tribute

to the men and women who serve the community so well in more than 22,000 sub-post offices throughout the Kingdom. These remarks apply equally to the Post Office counter clerks who man the larger post offices in the busy centres of population. The Government and, I know, the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, are grateful to them all for the invaluable contribution they make to the nation's life.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes to Two o'clock.